Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Croydon Corporation Bill [Lords],

Saint Peter's Chapel Stockport Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords], Read a Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Burnham and District Water) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hemel Hempstead Water) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Heywood and Middleton Water Board) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Slough) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Swaffham Water) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER OPERATIONS (MEDAL).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a decision has yet been arrived at regarding the grant of a medal to the troops engaged in operations on the North-West Frontier of India in 1938?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The matter is still under consideration.

FEDERATION.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what was the full wording of the resolution passed by the conference of Indian Princes at Bombay on 12th June?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The text of the resolution is understood to have been as follows:
The Conference of Princes and Ministers assembled at Bombay, having considered the revised draft Instrument of Accession and connected papers, resolves:
That the terms on the basis of which Accession is offered are fundamentally unsatisfactory in the directions indicated in the Report of the Hydari Committee of Ministers and confirmed by recommendations of the Gwalior Conference, and are, therefore, unacceptable.
At the same time, the Conference records its belief that it could not be the intention of His Majesty's Government to close the door on an All-India Federation

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: What are the Government going to do about it?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: My hon. Friend will understand that at the moment we have no official information of what decision the Conference arrived at, and that the information that I have given is, therefore, unofficial.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we to take it from the statement just made that the Government are reconsidering the whole question of Federation?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, the hon. Gentleman ought not to draw that conclusion.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Are the Government aware of the great danger that arises if Federation is indefinitely postponed?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think that the whole question of Federation is recognised as an extremely important one.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this particular scheme of Federation has been attacked both from the left and the right, and would it not be better to reconsider the whole matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: It is very often the case that a thing is attacked from several points of view without necessarily being bad.

NATIVE STATES (INFILTRATION).

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action has been taken by the Governors of the Provinces concerned to prevent the


collection of organised bodies of men in their own Provinces intending to carry on agitation in the Indian States; and whether their departure to these Indian States has been prevented?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Apart from Bombay, where, for internal reasons, the Provincial Government decided to prohibit the concentration of a large body of individuals in a certain district, no Provincial Government has, so far as I am aware, considered it necessary to take action of the kind referred to in the question.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Is there any doubt that infiltration into the native States is still going on?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think that It is true to say that there is a certain amount of infiltration into the native States, but it has not been such that any of the Provincial Governments have thought it necessary to take action.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Have the Princes made any objection and notified His Majesty's Government about it?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Certainly no representation has been made which has led any Governor to feel that his special responsibilities are involved.

PRISONERS, HYDERABAD.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he can obtain figures showing the number of people in the Hyderabad State who have been in prison during the last six months in connection with the struggle in that state for civil and religious liberty; and whether he will obtain also information as to the condition and treatment, and the number, of those now in prison?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I presume that the question is intended to refer to the Satyagrahi movement. According to the latest report that I have seen, the total number of arrests up to the end of May was something over 5,000. I have no reason to think that the treatment of prisoners is open to criticism.

Colonel Wedgwood: As these prisons are under our direct control, would it be possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ask for a special inquiry into the condition existing in those prisons at the present time?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: My noble Friend feels that nothing has occurred so far which has made out a case for a special inquiry, but the Resident is, of course, in close touch with the Hyderabad Government.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister what reply has been received from the Japanese Government to representations concerning the murder of Mr. Tinkler?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): My Noble Friend is still awaiting a reply.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that the Japanese Government have made no reply whatever to our representations concerning this murder, which took place in particularly atrocious circumstances?

Mr. Butler: Certainly no reply has been made to the representations to which the hon. Member refers, but the statement which I made shows that exchanges of view have taken place.

Mr. Hannah: Is not this matter merged in a very much bigger question?

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give particulars of any British lives and/or property that have been lost in China during the previous six months, especially during the evacuation of Hankow and Canton?

Mr. Butler: With the hon. Member's permission I am circulating a statement with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Has any claim been made against the Japanese?

Mr. Butler: Without notice I cannot say.

Following is the statement:

During the last six months four British subjects have lost their lives in China in circumstances involving members of the Japanese armed forces, namely, the Reverend R. G. Leigh, Dr. Bertram Lillie, Mr. R. M. Tinkler and an Indian policeman during the bombing of Hong Kong territory by Japanese aeroplanes. On each of these occasions I have made a full statement in the House. The most important instances of losses to British


property during this period, which have been brought to the notice of my Noble Friend, are the bombing of British property at Shamchun in Hong Kong territory, the bombing of mission property at Sian and Pingkiang and a number of other places, and the bombing of His Majesty's Consulate-General at Chungking.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether any further particulars have been received from the Japanese Government with reference to the newly formed Huak-sing commercial bank organised under the laws of the reformed Government of China; and whether he has information that the notes issued by this bank are now fully covered by a reserve in foreign currencies equal in every way to the notes issued by them?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on 5th June to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Day: Have the notes issued been accepted?

Mr. Butler: I must refer the hon. Member to the somewhat complicated statement which was issued, and which showed that we are watching the matter.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the Japanese official spokesman at Shanghai that, in spite of British extra-territorial rights, the Japanese reserve the right to take summary action against any foreigner who, in their opinion, endangers the safety of Japanese forces in the occupied areas, which action might include detention for indefinite periods and even execution; whether His Majesty's Government accept this view as regards any part of the International Settlement and its surroundings; and, if not, what action they are taking in the matter?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has seen Press reports of the statement in question. His Majesty's Government do not recognise the right of the Japanese authorities to arrest or detain British subjects in any circumstances, and the Japanese Government have been left in no doubt of His Majesty's Government s attitude in the matter.

EUROPEAN SITUATION.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether there is any alteration in the decision of the Government not to recognise the legality of the German annexation of Bohemia and Moravia, and which are the Governments he is consulting concerning the representation of national interests in Bohemia and Moravia?

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Prime Minister what decision has been reached concerning the future representation of British interests at Prague?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin has been instructed to make application to the German Government for an exequatur for a Consul-General in Prague. The practical reasons for which His Majesty's Government have taken this step were given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Debate on 26th May. I would refer, for instance, to the importance of having an officer at Prague competent to grant visas, among others to refugees whom it is proposed to admit into this country. While, in His Majesty's Government's opinion, the step taken implies de facto recognition of the present position in Bohemia and Moravia, it does not involve any modification of the views already expressed by His Majesty's Government on this question. Before taking their decision His Majesty's Government were in communication with other interested Governments, including those of France, the United States of America, the Soviet Union and Poland.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: By making this application for an exequatur, have not His Majesty's Government recognised the legality of the annexation?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I have said that it does not involve any modification of the view of His Majesty's Government in this matter. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember, His Majesty's Government have said that they regarded the original action as devoid of any basis of legality.

Mr. J. Morgan: Would there have been any objection to delay in this matter, in view of the provocative attacks on the Czechs now taking place by the Germans?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will refer to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th May he


will see that 20th June was the last date on which the exequatur could be asked for.

Mr. Eden: What action have the French Government taken in this matter? I was under the impression that there was still a Czecho-Slovakian Minister in Paris accredited to the French Government.

Mr. Butler: I am not authorised to give the opinions of the French Government.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Which were the Governments that His Majesty's Government consulted in this matter?

Mr. Butler: I have said that they included the Governments of France, the United States, the Soviet Union and Poland.

Mr. Benn: Have all those Governments applied for an exequatur?

Mr. Butler: I am not in a position to answer that question.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to what extent Slovakia is under the military occupation of German forces; and whether he can give any information as to the present internal situation in Slovakia?

Mr. Butler: Under Article 2 of the treaty of 23rd March, between Germany and Slovakia, German armed forces have the right at any time to erect military works and to garrison them in a zone which is defined in that Article. I understand that there have been no recent developments of special significance in Slovakia.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether in order to minimise popular misconceptions and to disseminate more accurate information, he will consider approaching the German and Italian Governments with a proposal to arrange or facilitate the exchange of visits between representative British, German and Italian groups who would be free to consider and discuss international problems, and, if possible, secure publication in each country of the respective viewpoints expressed in their gatherings?

Mr. Butler: Visits by private groups, particularly to and from Germany, have taken place in the past and have been

encouraged by the authorities in both countries. Whilst my Noble Friend would be glad to see them extended there are certain difficulties in the proposal made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. Gentleman at least consider the matter, particularly the suggestion that there should be an opportunity for free discussion of international matters; and could he not at least introduce these principles, in the hope that there will be some response from the German nation?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, my Noble Friend will give full consideration to the matter.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: If the exchange of visits between such groups is going to be organised, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is not confined to Germany and Italy, but extended also to France, Poland and other countries?

Mr. Butler: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to the importance of that aspect.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we have to approach this matter through international channels first?

SUBMARINE WARFARE.

Mr. Little: asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the danger attached to the submarine even in times of peace, as was made evident by the tragic disaster to the "Thetis," and its relatively small value in time of war, he will enter into negotiations with the Powers with the object of having the submarine abolished in warfare?

Mr. Butler: Proposals for the abolition of submarines were put forward by the British Empire Delegation at the Washington Conference 1921–22. They have been repeated on a number of occasions since, the last being at the Conference held before the conclusion of the London Naval Treaty, 1936. The proposals, however, did not on any occasion meet with general acceptance, and although the views of His Majesty's Government have not changed, they are not proposing to raise the question again at the present juncture.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not true to say that at that time the Germans stood in the way of the abolition of submarines?

Mr. Butler: There were more than one occasion to which I referred, and I should like to have notice of any further questions.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman in fact suggest that it was Germany that stood in the way?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

GERMANY (PROPAGANDA).

Major Stourton: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the regular system of encirclement propaganda in Germany emanating from official sources; and whether, in recognising the threat to peace implied in such deliberate misleading of public opinion in Germany, His Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to counter it by every means at their disposal?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Major Stourton: Will His Majesty's Government continue to impress on the German people that agreements have been entered into with foreign Powers solely for defensive purposes?

Mr. Butler: I did not quite hear the last part of my hon. Friend's question.

Major Stourton: Seeing that all the agreements that have been entered into with foreign Powers have been for defensive purposes, could not His Majesty's Government tell this to the German public?

Mr. Butler: The policy of His Majesty's Government, as has been made quite clear, shows that we have no aggressive desire.

GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the negotiations being conducted by Mr. Strang in Moscow to further a Franco-Russo-British pact against aggression, in view of the expressed reluctance of the Baltic States to accept a guarantee against aggressive acts on the part of Nazi Germany?

Mr. Dalton: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a further statement on the progress of the

negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): On the afternoon of 15th June, the French Ambassador at Moscow and His Majesty's Ambassador, accompanied by Mr. Strang, were received by M. Molotov, to whom Sir W. Seeds explained the latest Anglo-French proposals. A further meeting took place the following afternoon, when M. Molotov communicated to the French and British representatives certain observations of the Soviet Government on these proposals. Discussions are still proceeding.

Mr. Dalton: Are the instructions which have been furnished to Sir William Seeds wide enough to enable these discussions to be carried on without reference back?

The Prime Minister: I think that that must obviously be determined by the way in which the discussions proceed. It may be that some fresh point may be raised which would require reference back, but I am not aware of it.

Mr. Adams: Are there any difficulties now outstanding, besides the position of the Baltic States?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, there are several other points.

INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATIONS.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to preparing the ground for an eventual world conference, His Majesty's Government would be willing to enter into consultations with the United States, French, Russian, and other Governments desiring a peaceful solution of outstanding international questions, with a view to securing an agreed policy with regard to Colonies, raw materials, world markets, disarmament, and other international questions?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are already in contact with other Governments on matters concerning the peaceful solution of outstanding questions. Moreover, as the Prime Minister has stated on previous occasions, His Majesty's Government are ready to take any opportunity to promote the necessary work of preparation for a general settlement, which would demand the restoration of a general feeling of international confidence?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of an increasing public movement in Great Britain and the United States of America in sympathy with the principle of a federation of nations and a world parliament; and whether he will take the initiative in inquiring of President Roosevelt and the heads of other Powers whether they will consider supporting and sharing responsibility for the calling of such a convention for the above purpose?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the desire among many nations for as wide a measure of international co-operation as possible, and will always, as the Prime Minister has stated on numerous occasions, be ready to consider any useful suggestions to achieve that end. His Majesty's Government's attitude is well known to all, and the present circumstances do not seem propitious for any initiative such as that mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that one of His Majesty's own Ambassadors has been proposing something very much along these lines, and, in view of the considerable public opinion which is being organised in America, would not initiative on these lines be valuable at this juncture?

Mr. Butler: There are certain difficulties at this moment.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we always to be obstructed by difficulties, or should we not try to overcome them?

Mr. Butler: We do overcome them.

FOREIGN PUBLICITY DEPARTMENT.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister what salary Lord Perth will receive in respect of his duties in connection with the Publicity and Information Department of the Foreign Office?

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Prime Minister at what salary it is proposed to appoint Lord Perth; and will such salary be in addition to his pension?

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Prime Minister what pension Lord Perth now receives; and whether such pension was taken into consideration when deciding any additional payment as regards his new appointment?

The Prime Minister: The salary which Lord Perth will receive will be £1,100 per annum in respect of his duties as supervisor of the Foreign Publicity Department of the Foreign Office and of his duties as Director-General designate of the Ministry of Information which it is contemplated will be set up in the event of this country becoming engaged in a major war. In addition to this salary Lord Perth is in receipt of a pension of £1,900. The salary and pension together are equivalent to the salary of the permanent head of a first-class Department.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the salary for the post at the Foreign Office carry with it pension rights also?

The Prime Minister: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the pension of £1,900 a year which the Prime Minister has mentioned, would he not consider raising the pensions of the old age pensioners by 10s. a week?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister what will be the working relations between the new Department for Foreign Information and the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. Butler: The existing relations between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Foreign Office in regard to foreign language broadcasts will under go no change; that is to say, although responsibility for what is broadcast rests with the British Broadcasting Corporation, I understand that the corporation will continue to maintain the closest contact with the Foreign Office and will make full use of the information at the disposal of the Foreign Publicity Department.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether the new Information Department of the Foreign Office will be concerned only with international relations and foreign policy, or will also devote attention to making better known abroad our democratic institutions, sociological developments, industrial organisation, and cultural achievements; and, if so, what expert advice and assistance, outside the Foreign Office, will Lord Perth have at his command?

Mr. Butler: In the Prime Minister's replies to the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) and


Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 15th June he made it clear that the Foreign Publicity Department of the Foreign Office would strengthen the existing contacts between the Foreign Office and other bodies, and would seek to coordinate them more effectively. As explained, the matters mentioned by the hon. Member are already included in the activities of these existing bodies. I have no doubt that Lord Perth will avail himself of their expert advice and assistance.

Miss Rathbone: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the nature of the bodies, because, so far as we are aware, there is no body in the Foreign Office that is well qualified to give the kind of information indicated in my question, which is the kind of information that the general public in foreign countries are anxious to have— information as to how British democracy actually works?

Mr. Butler: There are several bodies, including the British Council, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the new Foreign Publicity Department, and I think that between them they can be relied upon to perform the service which the hon. Lady desires.

Miss Rathbone: Would it not be advisable that the new Department should have some special advisory department which could furnish the type of information in which they know people to be interested, and which the British Council are hardly qualified to furnish?

Mr. Butler: I have no doubt that in the early days of the functioning of this new system that consideration will be borne in mind, with a view to securing the type of advice which the hon. Lady suggests.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister what position will be held by Mr. Arthur Bryant in the Foreign Publicity Department of the Foreign Office?

Mr. Butler: Mr. Arthur Bryant is not a member of the Foreign Publicity Department of the Foreign Office.

Mr. Strauss: Is it true that Mr. Bryant will be connected in some way with the work of the department?

Mr. Butler: I am not aware that he will be connected with the work of the department, but he is a man of such value that I hope he will not be out of touch with it.

Mr. Strauss: Why is the Minister anxious to have working in that department a man whose Fascist sympathies are so well known?

Mr. Butler: I must, first of all, repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member. I never said that Mr. Bryant would be working in the department, and it is not contemplated that he will be working there. But that there should never be any connection between Mr. Arthur Bryant and the department would, I think, be a bad thing.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether he will ensure that the function of the Foreign Publicity Department of the Foreign Office will be primarily to publicise those principles of international justice, co-operation, and peace, to which Great Britain subscribes, and for which it would make appropriate sacrifices, rather than to defend and advocate the virtues of British diplomatic, economic, and Imperial interests?

Mr. Butler: I can assure the hon. Member that none of the causes for which Great Britain stands and in which her interests are involved will be overlooked.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does identify British Imperial interests with international justice, or is there some discrimination between the two?

Mr. Butler: British Imperial interests are just.

TIENTSIN (SITUATION).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have now received any official representations from the Japanese Government adopting the demands put forward by the Japanese spokesman at Tientsin; and whether he can make a further statement on the position at Tientsin?

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Prime Minister whether, in regard to her action at Tientsin, Japan is endeavouring to make a test case affecting the International Settlements in China, and, in any


decision at which the British Government arrives, will this factor be taken into consideration?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government propose at Tientsin to maintain, in view of the gravity of the principle involved, the inviolability of the British settlement?

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. H. G. Mackenzie, of Aberystwyth, who was stripped of his clothing by Japanese searchers, and of Mr. Ivor House, of Alverstoke, Hampshire, who was roughly handled and struck by a Japanese officer at the exit from the British Concession at Tientsin on 15th June; whether any other British subjects have been submitted to a similar indignity; and what action he has taken or proposes to take to prevent the maltreatment of British subjects;
(2) whether he can give any information as to the circumstances in which a detachment of the Durham Light Infantry in the British Concession at Tientsin were called up to prevent the Chinese mob, acting under the instructions of Japanese agitators, from rushing the barricades into the British Concession?

Commander Bower: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Japanese have declared martial law on the river between Tientsin and the sea, and have stopped all traffic between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.; and what provision has been made to keep communications open between the British Concession and the sea?

The Prime Minister: On 15th June a crowd gathered by Chinese and Korean agitators collected outside the British Concession. A detachment of the Durham Light Infantry were sent to support the British Municipal Police, but were later withdrawn when the mob had been reduced to about 200. The barrier restrictions at Tientsin continue. All British subjects have been held up at the barriers and rigorously searched, and in some cases were subjected to indignity. The entry of perishable foodstuffs and ice into the British Concession has been delayed by rigid search carried out at the barriers, and continues, therefore, to be spasmodic.

Normal supplies are reported to be reaching the market in the adjoining French Concession. No special arrangements appear to be called for as yet, but further information on the subject is being sought from the authorities on the spot.
On the morning of 18th June, two British coasting steamers came up river to Tientsin without stoppage or search. Generally speaking, however, British vessels, including tugs and lighters, have been stopped and searched by the Japanese military authorities.
Protests have been addressed by His Majesty's Consul-General at Tientsin to his Japanese colleague, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has been instructed to take these matters up with the Japanese Government.
The general position is not yet clear. It would appear that the original demand for the handing over of the four men has been confused by the introduction of larger issues of general policy. No formal representations have been received from the Japanese Government on this subject, and it is still hoped that a local settlement will be found possible. His Majesty's Government cannot but believe that the Japanese Government share their own desire not to widen the area of disagreement or to render more acute an already difficult situation. At the same time they are fully alive to the reactions of the present dispute on the position of other British and International Settlements in China.
My Noble Friend the Foreign Secretary is seeing the Japanese Ambassador today, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo is endeavouring to clarify the situation with the Japanese Government. As I informed the House on Thursday last, His Majesty's Government is maintaining the closest touch with the French and American Governments.
I will, of course, make a further statement at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Henderson: Does the offer of His Majesty's Government that the question of the four Chinese suspects should be settled by an international advisory committee still hold good?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir it still holds good.

Mr. Eden: Can we assume that it has been made clear from that statement that


all concerned now understand that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to ensure that supplies of foodstuffs for these British subjects reach them, if necessary?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Of course we are making inquiries into that point, and will take whatever steps may be necessary to ensure them supplies of foodstuffs.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the blockade at Kulangsu is being maintained, or whether it has been withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: I think it is being maintained.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether any special arrangements are being made to provide adequate food supplies for those residing in the British concessions at Tientsin and Kulangsu?

Mr. Butler: For the position at Tientsin, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement just made by the Prime Minister. The food situation at Kulangsu is not yet acute, but difficulties may arise concerning supplies of firewood, meat and vegetables. A food committee has been formed, and it is hoped to arrange for supplies from other ports by British ships.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the alarming reports reaching this country as to actual food shortage at both these places, and particularly at Kulangsu, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if necessary, His Majesty's Government will take direct action to see that our nationals are properly and adequately fed?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will have heard the assurances given by the Prime Minister on the subject of Tientsin. With regard to Kulangsu, it is hoped that supplies will be secured by British ships from other ports.

Mr. J. Morgan: Have the Government taken steps to see that the problem of Kulangsu shall be treated at the same time as that of Tientsin, so that there may be settlement of the whole problem?

Mr. Butler: The importance of Kulangsu is fully recognised by the Government.

Commander Bower: asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to increase the naval forces in the neighbourhood of Tientsin for the protection of the British

Concession; and whether he is aware that at this season there is ample depth of water in the river for protective vessels?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): Owing to the depth of water over the Taku Bar, the largest ship which can reach Tientsin is His Majesty's ship "Lowestoft," which is there now. It is not at present considered that the presence of other British men-of-war at Taku, which is the nearest point which can be reached by larger ships and which is 30 miles from Tientsin, would be of value. Such ships are available in North China waters if required. As regards the last part of the question, reports on the depths and conditions in the river are regularly received from local sources.

ITALIAN BROADCASTS.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to recent broadcasts from Bari; and whether he is satisfied that these broadcasts are in accordance with the terms of the Anglo-Italian Agreement?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is kept informed of the nature of the broadcasts from Bari. His Majesty's Government have not thought it desirable to address representations to the Italian Government about any recent broadcasts.

Mr. Roberts: Is it not a fact that a recent broadcast from this station included a report of a rising in Trans jordania which was quite fictitious; and is it in keeping with the Anglo-Italian Agreement that these statements should be made?

Mr. Butler: I am ready to consider any representation with regard to the Italian broadcasts which may be made to me by the hon. Member. His Majesty's Government take into consideration all the reports which they receive of these broadcasts, and the answer I have just given is based upon such consideration.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of children of ex-service men who continued to have the dependants' allowance until they reached the age of 21?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I regret that the records of my Department do not enable me to give the precise particulars asked for. I may, however, say that up to 31st March last the total number of allowances to children of deceased or disabled soldiers which had been continued beyond the normal age of 16 years, though not necessarily to the age of21, was approximately 47,000.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has had the case of Thomas Minshall, of Mosley Common, Boothstown, investigated by an officer of his Department; and, if so, what assistance can be given to him?

Sir W. Womersley: I sympathise with the circumstances of this distressing case, and the hon. Member will be aware that the King's Fund, of which I am the trustee, has already assisted this boy with grants for such purposes as invalid chairs and clothing during the past eight years. I am prepared to consider further occasional help from this source in co-operation with other ex-service funds. As the hon. Member has been informed, however, this case has been the subject of correspondence between my Department and the appropriate local authority who, after inquiry into the circumstances, have found that the case is not one in which they can render assistance.

Mr. Tinker: I think the hon. Member will agree that this is about the most pitiful case from the whole of the War period; and cannot I ask him in this case to do something more?

Sir W. Womersley: I quite agree that this is a very distressing case. I should like to have an interview with my hon. Friend, as there are some matters I should like to put to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SMALLHOLDERS.

Mr. Richards: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the proposal that the State should enter into partnership with smallholders in different parts of the country in order to encourage them to grow an abundance of health foods on something like the metayage system; and whether he will consider experimenting with that system?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): No, Sir. I do not think the hon. Member's proposal is suitable to conditions in this country.

Mr. Richards: Would the Minister agree that this is rather a favourable moment for such an experiment, seeing that the Exchequer is prepared to spend a great deal on agriculture now?

DERELICT LAND (RESTORATION).

Mr. Richards: asked the Minister of Agriculture what proposal does he consider making with a view to restoring the derelict land not only in the Eastern counties but also in other parts of the country to a condition of prosperity?

Sir R. Dorman Smith: I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Agricultural Development Bill, now before the House, which, together with other measures in pursuance of the Government's policy, is intended to enable farmers to make the fullest possible use of their land.

Mr. Richards: Does the Minister think that this will restore the derelict areas we have in this country, and would it not be well to consider taking some of these areas over by the State, as has been advocated by expert agriculturists?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir. I think the job of the Government is to create conditions in which the farmers themselves can do this work; and I think a lot of that work is really being done.

Mr. J. Morgan: Would not the Minister agree that what he saw in the Eastern Counties is typical of the country as a whole?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Would not the Minister agree that private enterprise in farming has failed?

BACON AND PIGS.

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the approximate value of bacon-pig products consumed in Great Britain for the last year for which figures are avail able; and what proportion of this value was home-produced?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I regret that particulars are not available to enable me to give the value of bacon-pig products consumed in Great Britain, but the value


of such products consumed in the United Kingdom in 1938 is estimated at approximately £54,000,000, of which rather more than one-third represents the value of home produce. The figures are exclusive of the value of lard and offals, for which adequate statistics are not available.

Sir A. Gridley: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the decrease in the pig population of Great Britain since the present price formula for bacon-pig was embodied in the Bacon Industry Act, 1938, and of the widespread dissatisfaction of pig-producers with that formula, and of the uncertainty of the future of the contract system in consequence, he can now make a favourable reply to the requests for an improvement in the price formula and undertake to introduce legislation during the current Session to give effect to such improvement in time for the next contract?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I can hold out no prospect of legislation to amend the Bacon Industry Act during the present Session. I am, however, well aware of the difficulties which have arisen, and I am giving, and shall continue to give, in consultation with the Bacon Development Board, earnest consideration to various suggestions which have been made for improving the working of that Act.

Sir A. Gridley: Is the Minister aware that all three boards responsible for pigs and bacon are agreed that the price formula must be revised during this Session, failing which the future of the contracting system is doomed and the industry will be plunged again into chaos; and what immediate action can be taken to prevent such a disaster to a vital home food industry?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As I have said, I am in consultation with the various bodies, and I hope to see them again within a very short time.

Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consult the consumers?

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that this price formula can be altered without legislation?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Would not the retention of one only of these three boards do away with a lot of overlapping?

Mr. De la Bère: Is this industry to be allowed to collapse completely?

LOANS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider establishing a company with some such title as the Agricultural Industries Development Corporation, Limited, and guaranteeing as to principal and interest £25,000,000 at 2½ per cent. on debenture stock, the security for such loan being the land and buildings which the development company purchased, taking as a precedent the moneys lent to the Railway Finance Corporation, Limited, in December 1935, which were guaranteed as to principal and interest by the Treasury?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I regret that I am unable to adopt my hon. Friend's proposal.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the public are quite prepared to lend money to agriculture under Treasury guarantee; and why should not agriculture be given that help in the same way that the railway companies receive Treasury assistance?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am not sure whether I quite understood all the implications of the suggestion of my hon. Friend and perhaps he will be good enough to come and talk the matter over with me.

FARM-WORK (TRAINING).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider a grant for the training of men for farm work who are without experience but who wish to go on the land, since farmers cannot afford to pay a standard wage to men without experience?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The general question is under examination in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

WORLD POULTRY CONGRESS (BRITISH EXHIBIT).

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the reduced grant is endangering the quality of the British exhibit at the forth coming World Poultry Congress in the United States of America; and what steps


does he intend to take to see that the British exhibit is worthy of this country at the present time?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The contribution promised by the Government towards the expenditure to be incurred by the poultry industry in preparing and staging the exhibit referred to is much higher than has been given for such an exhibit at any previous congress overseas, and was authorised only in view of certain exceptional circumstances including, of course, the higher cost of transport on this occasion. The effectiveness of the exhibit is the responsibility of the National Committee set up by the industry to prepare it, and I have no reason to suppose that the result will be that suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Morgan: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the British Government accepted the invitation of the State Department in America to stage this exhibit and called upon two bodies in this country to do so on their behalf. As the fund is not sufficient at this moment to put the exhibit satisfactorily before the American public, what does he intend to do?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morgan: If I represent to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have received representations from the authorities concerned this morning that they are not adequately provided for this purpose, what does he intend to do?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I shall be very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's representations.

LABOUR.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Agriculture the extent of the existing shortage of agricultural labour?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have received reports of a shortage of agricultural labour, and especially of skilled workers, in a number of districts, but it is not possible to state precisely the extent of the deficiency.

Mr. Lipson: Is it not the fact that the success of Government agricultural policy must depend upon an adequate supply of

skilled agricultural workers, and will the Minister take steps to find out the exact extent of that shortage?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It is not possible in any given district to say how many workers these should be, but that there is a shortage and that we want to get men back to the land, there is no doubt at all.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not true that there is a decrease each month of agricultural labourers on the land?

TRACTORS (EMERGENCY SUPPLY).

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has concluded his negotiations for an emergency supply of tractors; and whether all the manufacturing firms concerned have agreed to co-operate in the scheme?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Agreement has been reached with the Ford Motor Company for the supply of Fordson tractors, which will be stored by Ford dealers throughout Great Britain, as part of the national reserve of agricultural machinery. This company is the only one in Great Britain which has the necessary productive and distributive capacity to enable a reserve of tractors of the size contemplated to be rapidly acquired and regularly turned over within a reasonable period. This arrangement does not preclude the possibility of acquiring some additional supplies of tractors from any other manufacturer in this country if suitable arrangements can be made.

Mr. Morgan: Was no attempt made directly to approach known manufacturing firms established in this country other than the Ford Company?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Certainly there have been conversations with other firms.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend considered the possibility of laying in a stock of producer-gas tractors in view of the fact that other tractors depend upon imported fuel, whereas the producer-gas tractors depend upon fuel produced in this country?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The producer-gas is still in an experimental stage, but it is being examined with care.

Mr. Nicholson: May I assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that he is mistaken?

Mr. J. Morgan: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is considerable resentment within the tractor manufacturing industry in this country that they have not been approached, and that possibly that will make them a little indifferent to his scheme in the future?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As I have said, the arrangement with the Ford Company does not preclude the possibility of acquiring tractors from other manufacturers.

Mr. Morgan: Why does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman approach the other firms?

INDUSTRY (COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the still growing number of committees, commissions and councils, he will consider a scheme for their rationalisation in order to ensure that they are being used for the promotion of industry rather than for the destruction of private enterprise?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the implication in my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Wheat Commission and the Food Council have allowed the grain trade to be completely wiped out, and will he take some steps to appoint a commission to protect the interests of the small men, as many of the existing commissions are simply agencies for the protection of monopolies in this country?

The Prime Minister: I understand that my hon. Friend is now proposing a new commission.

Mr. De la Bère: May not the small men have some protection against the monopolists?

Mr. Gallacher: Not while you have this Government.

WIRELESS INTERFERENCE (NEON-SIGN INSTALLATIONS).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Postmaster-General how many complaints were received by his Department in the

12 months to the last convenient date concerning wireless interference caused by neon-sign installations; and whether any action is contemplated to compel owners of these installations to fit interference-suppression devices?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): About a thousand complaints were received during the year 1938 concerning interference with wireless reception caused by neon-sign installations. In most of these cases the owners of the installations agreed to fit interference-suppression devices, although there is at present no legal power to compel them to do so. Inquiries regarding the possible scope and operation of a new Wireless Telegraphy Bill to deal, inter alia, with the question of electrical interference with wireless reception are being actively pursued. The problem is however one of great complexity, involving consultation with many interests which would be affected; and some time must elapse before these consultations can be completed.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that many of the people who have licences are getting very bad results, will the Minister speed up any negotiations that are taking place in connection with the legalising of the position?

Major Tryon: I shall be glad to get the matter concluded as soon as possible.

Mr. Poole: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the general position here and take into account the fact that one of the prime offenders is the Central Electricity Board with their high tension cables?

Major Tryon: That is one of the points which makes the matter a difficult one with which to deal,

TELEPHONE MANUFACTURERS (CONTRACTS).

Mr. Montague: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the group of manufacturers of telephone equipment which operate as a ring are engaged upon non-competitive agreements with his Department, he will assure the House that the public will be protected in regard to profits made by these firms in the same way as those engaged upon the production of armaments?

Major Tryon: The Bulk Equipment Agreement to which the hon. Member refers was made several years ago with a group of contractors in order to secure to the Post Office the benefits of standardisation of equipment, planned production and the pooling of patents. Prices have been revised from time to time as the agreement fell due for renewal. These conditions seem to me substantially different from those governing armament contracts but, as I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) on 12th June, certain additional facilities have been accorded by the contractors for checking the reasonableness of prices, and a detailed investigation is now proceeding as a preliminary to the arrangement of a new agreement.

Mr. Montague: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will supply a complete list of firms concerned in the supply of Post Office telephone equipment under non-competitive agreements with his department; and state their individual profits for each year since 1933, including the latest published figures?

Major Tryon: As the list for which the hon. Member asks contains the names of 23 firms, I will circulate it in the Official Report. I have no information as to the individual companies' profits, beyond that made available to the public by the Registrar of joint stock companies.

Following is the List:

Firms with which the Post Office has non-competitive agreements for the supply of telephone plant. —

The Alton Battery Company, Limited.
Automatic Telephone and Electric Company, Limited.
British Insulated Cables, Limited.
Britannia Batteries, Limited.
Chloride Electrical Storage Company, Limited.
D.P. Battery Company, Limited.
Ericcsons Telephones, Limited.
The General Electric Company, Limited.
Hall Telephone Accessories (1928) Limited.
The Hart Accumulator Company, Limited.
London Electric Wire Company and Smiths, Limited.
L.P.S. Electrical Company, Limited.

Phoenix Telephone and Electric Works, Limited.
Pirelli General Cable Works, Limited.
The Plessey Company, Limited.
Pritchett and Gold and E.P.S. Company, Limited.
Reliance Electrical Wire Company and Smiths, Limited.
Salford Electrical Instruments, Limited.
Siemens Brothers and Company, Limited.
Standard Telephones and Cables, Limited.
Telephone Manufacturing Company, Limited.
The Tudor Accumulator Company, Limited.
United Telephone Cables, Limited.

Mr. Montague: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that one firm, Messrs. Ericsson, engaged upon the supply of Post Office telephone equipment under non-competitive agreements has issued a balance sheet showing annual profits of 25 per cent., the same as the profit made the previous year; and whether he is satisfied with his Department's position with regard to this matter?

Major Tryon: I am aware of the facts referred to by the hon. Member, but I do not think it would be safe to draw any conclusion that the Department's interests—which represent only a part of the firm's business—are not reasonably safeguarded. The prices paid under the agreements with the equipment contractors are common to all the firms interested and are at present under detailed investigation.

Mr. Montague: Does that mean that the Government are not prepared to protect the public against the charges of these telephone companies?

Major Tryon: If the hon. Member reads my answer he will see that we are taking active steps to investigate this matter in order to secure fair prices for the public. He will realise that as a Department we are concerned to obtain proper prices for our contracts. We are not concerned with the profits of a firm over its whole business but to get proper prices for our own particular contracts.

Mr. Montague: Are the Post Office using the machinery for checking profits and costs?

Major Tryon: We are going into the question of checking, and if the hon. Member reads my answer of 12th June he will see what we are doing,

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (ACCOUNTS).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the British Broadcasting Corporation accounts as at 31st December last, showing balance at bank as being £591,526, cash at bank less balance on secured loan account; whether he will state the actual size of the loan and what assets are pledged as security there for?

Major Tryon: I am informed by the British Broadcasting Corporation that the amount of the loan is £ 200,000 and that it is secured on the whole undertaking and assets of the Corporation. I understand that the loan is now nominal, as it is covered by a corresponding sum maintained in the current account of the Corporation, and no effective interest charge arises.

Mr. Bellenger: While thanking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for that information, would it not be as well to include information of this nature in the public accounts, and is not the method of presenting these accounts by the B.B.C. somewhat unusual from the accountancy point of view, and would not be tolerated in private business?

Major Tryon: I understand that the method by which the B.B.C. present their accounts has been approved, but if the hon. Member has any suggestion to make, I will send it on to them.

RICHMOND PARK (RIDING CHARGES).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the First Commissioner of Works for what reason he proposes to abolish the freedom of the public to ride in the Royal parks; whether it is possible under the Parks Acts to impose charges for those riding in such parks; and whether he will withdraw for amendment that part of the draft Richmond Park Regulations recently submitted to Parliament which will enable the park authorities indirectly to impose such charges?

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the First Commissioner of Works under what authority riders will only be permitted in future, to use Richmond Park if they conform to certain conditions which impose charges, in view of the fact that under the Parks Regulation Acts, no charge may be imposed on users of the Royal parks?

The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ramsbotham): The increase in riding has led to very considerable and growing damage to the park, especially in wet weather. In the interests of the general public and of the riders themselves, a track has been formed for the use of riders, after 12 noon at week-ends and at times when the rest of the ground is too wet for riding. On all other occasions they can ride where they please. New regulations are necessary to enable the control of riding to be carried out in a satisfactory manner. The imposition of a charge is made under the ordinary powers of the commissioners on behalf of the Crown as owner, and regulations are not required for this purpose. I should add that the cost of the riding track and of the repair of damage to the park is considerably more than is expected to be obtained from the riders, and it seems only fair that they should make some contribution to this heavy expenditure. I am discussing the draft regulations with those interested.

Sir H. Williams: Do not these charges at Richmond Park introduce a principle which does not operate in Hyde Park?

Sir William Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these regulations, made by his predecessor, were entirely due to lack of consideration shown by a few riders who insisted on galloping in very wet weather, thereby injuring the turf, and is he aware that most riders are not at all displeased by these regulations?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I think the introduction of the track has not tended to decrease the number of riders but rather the reverse. The riding track was formed last year; the park was closed to riders only 10 times last year as compared with 27 times and 67 times respectively in the two previous years before the track was introduced. The legal position is that the public have no right of admission to the park except by grace of the Crown. Therefore, no right exists to bring horses


into the park, and the Parks (Regulation) Act under which regulations are made are quite irrelevant to the question. Charges are made for golf, tennis and polo in the park, and it does not seem reasonable that riders should escape a charge.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend answer the question I put about fees in Hyde Park?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot spend too much time on one question.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. I addressed a question to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) intervened, with the result that my question was not answered.

Mr. Speaker: The reply was long, and it took a long time to read.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS WORK (UNEMPLOYED, LONDON).

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Lord Privy Seal why instructions have been issued by his Department to Employment Exchanges in the London area that when men are wanted for air-raid precautions work such as trench construction, preference should be given to men between the ages of 18 and 30; and whether he will consider allowing the managers of exchanges to exercise their discretion in this matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement on 18th May in reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins). As explained then, it is my right hon. Friend's desire that the instructions referred to shall be applied with due regard to local circumstances. The divisional controller is arranging to review the matter at the exchanges in the London area.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the hon. Member say whether this instruction applies over the whole country, and may I take it from his reply that managers of exchanges may now exercise their discretion in this matter and are not bound by instructions?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Managers of exchanges have always been able to exercise their discretion in this matter. The arrangement applies to the country as a whole because it is the view of the Government that long-term unemployment in the younger groups represents a peculiar social problem.

BURNING PIT-HEAPS.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the anxiety in many mining areas should war not be averted owing to the delay in dealing effectively with the burning pit-heaps; and what he proposes to do to allay such anxiety?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 8th June to a question by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor).

Mr. Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for himself or some member of his Department; to visit these areas at night time to see these pit-heaps all aglow?

Sir J. Anderson: Until the Civil Defence Bill has become an Act of Parliament I have no power in this matter, but with a view to exercising the power conferred by that Bill when it is on the Statute Book I am at present considering, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Mines Department, whether any further measures can be devised for dealing with this very difficult problem.

FIRE STATION, TAMWORTH (TENDERS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether in cases in which a local authority proposes, subject to his approval, to accept a tender by a local contractor, not being the lowest tender, on the ground that local labour would be employed, whereas, if the lowest tender were accepted labour would be brought from a distance, it is his practice to ignore prospective employment of local labour as justification for passing over lowest tenders;
(2) whether he will indicate the considerations upon which he declined to approve the recommendation by the joint


fire committee of the Tamworth Borough Council and the Tamworth Rural District Council that a certain local tender for a new fire station should be accepted in preference to the lowest tender on the ground that, whereas the difference between the amounts of the two tenders was trivial, the local tendererwould employ more local labour than the lowest tenderer?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): My right hon. Friend could not regard the fact that a tenderer is a local contractor who would employ local labour as of itself sufficient justification for passing over the lowest tender in his favour. The passing over of a tender on such grounds, notwithstanding that the difference in tender price is small, would militate against competitive tendering. For these reasons my right hon. Friend was unable to approve the proposal of the Tamworth Fire Joint Committee.

Sir J. Mellor: Is my hon. Friend aware that in this case the difference between the local tender and the lowest tender was only 12s. 6d., and also that in inviting tenders the Fire Joint Committee expressly reserved their right not to accept the lowest tender?

Mr. Bernays: The difference, as I said in my answer, was only a very small one, but that does not affect the principle of my right hon. Friend that the lowest tender should be accepted.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Minister be prepared to receive a deputation from the Fire Joint Committee in regard to this matter?

Mr. Bernays: I will bring that suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Poole: Is this not a very vital matter; not a question of 12s. 6d. but the employment of local labour as against imported labour, and is not that of sufficient importance to justify the acceptance of a tender which was so near the lowest tender?

Mr. Bernays: It is always open to a local authority in any contract to stipulate that it shall be carried out by local labour.

Sir Irving Albery: Can the hon. Member say whether the statement he has just

made also applies to tenders which are invited by advertisement?

Mr. Bernays: I should like to have notice of that question.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the divisional court in the case of Donovan versus National Amalgamated Approved Society; and what steps he intends to take to have all cases reviewed where pension has been refused in circumstances similar to those of Mrs. Donovan, with a view to the granting of pension in all such cases?

Mr. Bernays: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, it is my right hon. Friend's intention to review all cases which have been noted or may be brought to light, in which, having regard to the decision of the court, a claim to pension might succeed.

SPEKE AIR FRAME FACTORY,

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement about the strike at the Speke Air Frame Factory?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am informed that there was a full resumption of work on Friday last, and that discussions have since taken place between the parties.

MILITARY TRAINING.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the dismissal by his employers of Mr. Eric Cockshott, of 3, Ashenhurst Avenue, Newsome, Huddersfield, who is 20 years of age, on Tuesday, 13th June last, in circumstances which suggest that the dismissal was due to his liability to military service?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no information as to the circumstances of this particular case, and am making inquiry.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: In view of the fact that 10 days ago I asked a question about a similar case and the hon. Member gave a similar answer, may I ask how long it takes to make inquiries into these matters?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It, obviously, takes a little time. The hon. Member should receive my letter this evening, and he will find that the arguments he advanced were not at all justified.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Labour whether the same standard of physical fitness was applied in the medical tests of the militiamen as is done for recruits for the Regular Forces?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir; the medical examinations for the Regular Forces have in view the needs of particular units, whilst the examination of militiamen is of a more general character.

Mr. Macdonald: Is that the reason why so large a percentage have been passed whereas the failure in the recruits for the Regular Forces is over 20 per cent.? In this case it is only 2 per cent.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A very high standard is required. There are five doctors, and the results show the very high standard of fitness in this age group.

Mr. Stephen: Does the Minister realise that men may be passed in a very perfunctory examination and denied pensions subsequently?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not a perfunctory examination at all.

Mr. Stephen: Is the hon. Member aware that he said the Medical Board take only five minutes per man; and what kind of an examination is that?

HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "THETIS."

Sir W. Davison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Tribunal of Inquiry into the loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis" will, inter alia, be asked to ascertain whether His Majesty's Sub marine "Thetis" had any external fit ting or fittings to which a pipe or pipes for pumping in fresh air could be attached and also fittings whereby foul air could be drawn out, and, if not, whether some such fittings should not have been provided?

Colonel Llewellin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the terms of the Resolution to set up the Tribunal of Inquiry. The Tribunal is empowered to inquire into

all the circumstances surrounding the loss of the submarine and the subsequent efforts to save the lives of those in the ship, and Mr. Justice Bucknill will doubtless consider this question amongst others.

Sir W. Davison: Can my hon. and gallant Friend assure the House that, pending the completion of the report of the Tribunal of Inquiry, the Admiralty will give careful consideration to the suggestions made in my question, which I am advised are quite practicable, so that any submarines now under construction or repair will be provided with external fittings of the kind mentioned?

Colonel Llewellin: I think it would not be wise for the Admiralty to announce any decision on this point while the Tribunal which was set up by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament is considering the matter.

Mr. Poole: In order to allay public apprehension on the matter will the hon. and gallant Member deny the persistent rumour that vital apparatus was despatched from Portsmouth to Liverpool, not by air or by rail, but by the slowest mode of transport, by road?

Colonel Llewellin: That is, obviously, a question of which I should have notice.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the scales of allowances to be provided for the dependants of the men and officers who were lost in the "Thetis" and what the corresponding scales would have been had the allowances been paid on the basis applicable to dependants of such men in the Great War?

Colonel Llewellin: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Stephen: Is it not the case that the allowances under the present scheme are much lower than the allowances for men who served in the War?

Colonel Llewellin: The hon. Member had better await the whole of the figures. There are some 64 in the table, and some of them show a reduction on the 1919 figures, but the difference in the cost-of-living figures between the two times must


be borne in mind, and if they are taken into consideration, the amounts will be found to be rather higher.

Mr. Stephen: Is it not the case that the figures show that the allowances are quite inadequate, and that consequently an appeal has been made to charity by the Lord Mayor for these people?

Colonel Llewellin: I do not think the figures are inadequate, and I appreciate the fact that the Lord Mayor of London and other Lord Mayors have started a fund which, I think, will be of great help to the dependants of the men who lost their lives.

Mr. Logan: Do I understand that the allowances that are to be made to those who were maintained by their husbands or sons will be sufficient to prevent them

Statement showing the Scales of Pension and Allowances payable to the dependants of the men and officers who were lost in the "Thetis" and the corresponding Great War Scales of 1919.


Men.


Rank.
Present Scales.
Corresponding Great War Scales.


Widow over 40 years, or with children eligible for allowance.
Widow not over 40 years and without children eligible for allowance.
Widow over 40 years, or with children eligible for allowance.
Widow not over 40 years and without children eligible for allowance.


Widows:






Chief P.O
…
27s. 0d. weekly
20s. 0d. weekly
33s. 4d. weekly
25s. 0d. weekly


P.O
…
25s. 6d. weekly
18s. 6d. weekly
31s. 1d. weekly
23s. 4d. weekly


Leading Rates
…
24s.0d. weekly
17s. 0d. weekly
28s. 11d. weekly
21s. 8d. weekly


A.B
…
22s. 6d. weekly
15s. 6d. weekly
26s. 8d. weekly
20s. 0d. weekly


Children:
Weekly:
Weekly:


All Ratings
…
5s. 0d. each child (Mother living)
10s. 0d. for 1st child
Mother living.




l0s. 0d. each child (Motherless)
7s. 6d. for 2nd child






6s. 0d. for each other child






12s. 0d. for 1st child
Mother-less.






11s. 0d. for each child after 1st


Parents:


All Ratings
…
 *Not exceeding 10s. 0d. a week for one parent.
Within the amount which the deceased son, or sons, might have been
expected to contribute, but in no case exceeding 20s. 0d. a week.




*Not exceeding 12s 6d a week for two parents.




*Subject to incapacity and need.




Widowed Mother in good health, if in need 7s. 6d a week.
Subject to incapacity and need in all cases.


Juvenile Brothers and Sisters:


All Ratings
…
Collective grant not exceeding 10s. 0d. a week and not exceeding 5s. 0d. a week for any one brother or sister.
Children's rates as above and under children's conditions.


Note. — Parents may receive Age and Widows Pensions under the Contributory Pensions Acts in addition to Naval Pensions.

having to go to the Poor Law? Will they be a subsistence allowance? Are we going to have any of these people who have lost their sons or husbands seeking Poor Law relief in order to maintain their homes?

Colonel Llewellin: No, I hope nobody will have to seek Poor Law relief. The figures are the same for all three Services.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Can the hon. and gallant Member say what is happening at the present time with regard to these dependants, and is he quite sure that none are applying for relief?

Colonel Llewellin: I have heard of no case applying for relief, and I do not think there can be any. We are paying out these allowances now.

Following is the table:

Officers


Rank.
Present Scales.
Corresponding Great War Rates.


—
Widow over 40 years, or with children eligible for allowance.
Widow not over 40 years and without children eligible for allowance.


Widows:


Commander
£ 180 per annum
£ 216 per annum
£ 200 per annum.


Lieutenant Commander.
£ 140 per annum
£ 180 per annum
£ 168 per annum.


Lieutenant
£ 100 per annum
£ 140 per annum
£ 120 per annum.


Commissioned Engineer.
£90 per annum
£ 105 per annum
£ 90 per annum.


Children:


For all Officers
£ 24 per annum (for each child).
For Officers other than Commissioned Engineer:




£ 36 per annum for each child.




For Commissioned Engineer:




£ 30 per annum for the 1st child.




£ 25 per annum for the 2nd child.




£ 18 per annum for the 3rd and each subsequent child.


Education expenses are repayable, within certain limits, under both codes.


General Note. — The cost of living Index Figure in 1919, when the Great War Rates were fixed, was 215; the present cost of living Index Figure is 153. If allowance is made for the cost of living factor the present scales compare favourably with the Great War Scales.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS, GLASGOW.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools have been built by the Glasgow Education Committee since the passing of the Act for raising the school age with a view to making suitable accommodation for the secondary education of the children concerned?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): Since the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1936, two new permanent secondary schools and one temporary secondary school have been opened in Glasgow. In addition, there are five new secondary schools which are either under construction or the plans of which have been approved; four of these are being provided to replace and to extend existing provision.

Mr. Stephen: Can the Under-Secretary say what is the reason for the failure to make adequate provision for these children in the schools?

Mr. Wedderburn: I am advised that the provision which will be available will be adequate by the time the school-leaving age is raised.

Mr. Stephen: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is an amalgamation of a school scheme on a temporary basis because the provision is not adequate for the time when the school-leaving age takes effect?

Mr. Wedderburn: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that.

Mr. Stephen: Then how can the Undersecretary say that when the school-leaving age comes into operation it is hoped that there will be adequate provision?

Mr. Wedderburn: No, Sir, I said that I am advised there will be adequate provision by the time the school-leaving age is raised.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Will the Prime Minister tell us for what purposes he proposes to suspend the Eleven o' Clock Rule to-night, and whether it is intended that the House should sit late?

The Prime Minister: We hope to make good progress in Committee with the Ministry of Supply Bill without asking the House to sit late. We also propose to take the Report stage of the Agricultural Development Bill Money Resolution.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House). — [The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 94.

Division No. 178.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Foot, D. M.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Furness, S. N.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Peake, O.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc 'h Univ's)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Petherick, M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Goldie, N. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Assheton, R.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pilkington, R.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Procter, Major H. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Purbrick, R.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (isle of Thanet)
Grotton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Rankin, Sir R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beechman, N. A.
Hambro, A. V.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Hammersley, S. S.
Remer, J. R.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hannah, I. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bernays, R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Blair, Sir R.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Brass, Sir W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Salmon, Sir I.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P,
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hepworth, J.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Bull, B. B.
Hopkinson, A.
Scott, Lord William


Bullock, Capt. M.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Senly, Sir H. M.


Baffin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Selley, H.R.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Butcher, H. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Hunloke, H. P.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Hunter, T.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cary, R. A.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Keeling, E. H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Channon, H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sutcliffe, H.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Levy, T.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lewis, O.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Liddall, W. S.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lindsay, K. M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Lipson, D. L.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Little, J.
Touche, G. C.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lyons, A. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
McKie, J. H.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Evan


Davidson, Viscountess
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L.(Hull)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


De Chair, S. S.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


De la Bère, R.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Warrender, Sir V.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mander, G. le M.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Denville, Alfred
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Doland, G. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Donner, P. W.
Marsden, Commander A.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Drewe, C.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Duggan, H. J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Dunglass, Lord
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moreing, A. C.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wright, Wing Commander J. A. C.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr. Munro.


Findlay, Sir E.
Nall, Sir J.








NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ridley, G.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Sanders, W. S.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sexton, T. M.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Shinwell, E.


Barnes, A. J.
Hicks, E. G.
Silkin, L.


Barr, J.
Hopkin, O.
Silverman, S. S.


Batey, J.
Isaacs, G. A.
Simpson, F. B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Benson, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Broad, F. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Burke, W. A.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'gnt'n-le-Sp'ng)


Charleton, H. C.
Logan, O. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cove, W. G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Dalton, H.
McGovern, J.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H,
MacLaren, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
Marshall, F.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Maxton, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Messer, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilmot, J.


Gallacher, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe


Gardner, B. W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Poole, C. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

CLAUSE 1 (Establishment of Ministry of Supply.)

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page I, line 13, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I should like to ask you, Sir Dennis, whether the Amendments to this Clause which stand on the Order Paper in my name may be taken together, as they raise very much the same point, and I think it would be generally convenient if they could be considered together. I would point out that I do not desire to move the Amendment in page 2, line 4, to leave out paragraph (c), but that I wish to move a manuscript Amendment to leave out paragraph (a).

The Chairman: I do not quite follow the hon. Member. His first Amendment on the Order Paper is to leave out Subsection (2), which deals with the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary. His next Amendment would be consequential on that, because it is to leave out the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not understand the hon. Member when he says that he does not desire to move the Amendment to leave out paragraph (c) but to move his manuscript Amendment to leave out paragraph (a). I must consider all the hon. Member's Amendments and make my selection.

Mr. Mander: The effect of that Amendment would be that the right hon. Gentleman who is to be Minister of Supply would have to go to another place almost immediately, and I do not desire to suggest that. There are two points that I am raising. First, there is the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary, and secondly, the appointment of a new paid Minister of Supply. I propose to argue that it might be dealt with by not arrogating a salary to the Minister, but by allowing him to take one of the other sinecure offices which already exist and which carry a salary.

The Chairman: It seems to me that the hon. Member is now raising rather a difficult point. We had better take the

Amendments as they appear on the Paper and see how they work in. At the moment I call him to move his first Amendment, which is to leave out Subsection (2), and I take it that in the event of that Amendment being carried he would wish to move a consequential Amendment on the Paper, because, having got rid of the Parliamentary Secretary to the new Ministry, he would move to omit the provision providing a salary for the office.

Mr. Mander: Of course the salary of the Minister himself raises a separate question. I move this Amendment, not from the point of view that an Undersecretary is not desirable in certain circumstances in connection with the Ministry of Supply. We on these benches have been arguing strongly in favour of the creation of this Ministry for a very considerable time and we want the work to be carried out as effectively as possible. But I do think there is a very grave danger in adding to the paid offices under the Government. Already there are upwards of 100 Members of the House who are dependent in one way or another for their appointment on the Government of the day. It seems very undesirable, unless it be absolutely necessary, that any addition should be made to that number. Something like one-sixth of the House is in one way or another dependent on the Government. If it is proposed to appoint an Under-Secretary as and when it becomes necessary that should be done not by appointing a new Under-Secretary, but by abolishing one of the Under-Secretary ships which are redundant, and I venture to say that as long as there are three representatives of the Admiralty and three representatives of the War Office, it is not right to come to this House and ask for the appointment of a new Under-Secretary for this Department. It is a sound constitutional doctrine that every Department should have two representatives, a Minister and an Undersecretary, but in existing circumstances, in order to avoid constitutional inroads upon the rights of back-benchers who will soon be overridden by the number of members who are in the Government, it is not desirable to create a new Undersecretary at a period when there are, as I have said, six Under-Secretaries representing two Departments. I hope that the Minister will be able to make some


statement with regard to these points on behalf of the Government.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I must confess that I have a certain amount of sympathy with what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has said. There is a tendency to-day, as each new problem turns up, to create new Ministers to deal with it, without reviewing the question whether other Ministers have, in fact, full employment in their jobs. If this proposal of the Government is carried we shall have no fewer than 12 Ministers engaged in one way or another in Defence, three for the Admiralty, three for the Army, two for the Air Force, one for Co-ordination, one for Air-Raid Precautions and now two for the Ministry of Supply. It seems to me, while recognising the magnitude of the problem, that 12 Ministers are rather much to deal with it. At the same time I do feel that there are some other appointments which might now be reviewed — for example in the case of the Post Office, where we could manage with one Minister instead of two. I think the hon. Member has performed a useful service in calling attention to this matter. Whatever the desire of the Government with regard to this particular appointment, I hope that they will take an early opportunity of reviewing the whole question and see whether the total number of Ministers might not be reduced with advantage.

4.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I wish to oppose the Amendment. When a Minister was appointed for the Co-ordination of Defence one of the complaints that we felt it necessary constantly to make on this side was that although the Minister had such an immense task laid upon him, his staff for the purpose of that task was completely inadequate. In the present case we are appointing a Minister of Supply, who also is to have an enormous task, a task which, if he exercises certain powers conferred upon him by this Bill, will steadily grow and grow. In these circumstances I think it would be wrong of the House to deny him the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary. I notice that in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill, in the summary on finance, it is stated that the expenditure on salaries and allowances for the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the staff, are

estimated at £30,000 per annum. I have seen a very interesting calculation that the machinery of Supply as it exists now —I am not speaking of supplies themselves —ost something like £8,000,000 per annum; and the Minister is himself, by this Bill, taking over supplies to the extent of £100,000,000 sterling per annum. In these circumstances I am bound to say that I think the financial provision for Ministers and staff, having relation to the difficulties of their task, is certainly on the moderate side. It would not be right to ask the Minister to perform the duties without the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary. For these reasons I trust the Committee will reject the Amendment.

4.9 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment made it clear at the beginning of his speech that we recognise the necessity for the new Minister of Supply to have some assistant to represent him in the House and to help him in his manifold duties; but the reason for the Amendment is a larger one, namely, the multiplication of offices under the Crown. It is true that there has been a great expansion of duties in the creation of new Ministries and new Departments, but it is becoming a serious danger for the House of Commons when a very large percentage of its Members in some way or another are holding offices of profit under the Crown. There was a time in the good old days when a Minister on appointment had to seek re-election, had to go through the ordeal of a by-election. That arrangement was in existence before the War, and it was only after the War, comparatively recently, that the change was made. The origin of that custom was undoubtedly the feeling of Parliament that the business of the House of Commons was to control Ministers, that the House of Commons should be independent of the Executive and the Crown. Therefore, once a man had taken an office of profit he had to go back to his electors and get fresh authority from them.

Sir Herbert Williams: That did not apply to Parliamentary Secretaries.

Sir P. Harris: I quite agree, but the principle still remains the same. The House of Commons has to exercise the great duty of controlling and criticising


and being independent of the Executive. Now we have all these new offices, each with a new Minister, each with an Undersecretary, each Minister with a Parliamentary private secretary, each secretary with a Parliamentary private secretary, and in every new Department there are four Members of the House, two paid and two unpaid, who are in office largely through losing their independence. Whatever their opinions, in a general way they have to subordinate their views and become a part of the Government of the day. That is an effect that we wish to check at the present time. I see sitting on the Government Front Bench one of the three representatives of the Admiralty. I have even heard him "tipped" as a possible occupant of the new office of Parliamentary Secretary which we are debating. I have no doubt that he would occupy it with great charm because of a very pleasing personality. It is about time that some of these posts were considered superfluous and that the number of people holding office under the Crown was reduced. We had a very practical and common-sense method of getting over that difficulty in the case of Civil Defence. There we have in that job a Minister holding another post, that of Lord Privy Seal. He has not got an Under-Secretary, but he has the very capable assistance of the Chancellor of the Duchy. That is an excellent way of getting over this difficulty. Now that we are creating post after post and Department after Department, it is about time that the whole position was reviewed. Before we part with this Clause I think we ought to have some undertaking from the Government that they are considering the position, and that if we do pass the Clause either the position of Under-Secretary should be duplicated with that of some honorary post, ar some post which is now superfluous should be abolished.

4.13 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: The speech to which we have just listened is a speech against a Ministry of Supply.

Sir P. Harris: No.

Sir H. Williams: Yes, it is. I was one of those who were doubtful, and I still am doubtful, about the establishment of the new Ministry; but quite clearly if you are to have a Ministry of Supply, from the point of view of day-to-day administra-

tion a Parliamentary Secretary is absolutely essential.

Sir P. Harris: In my opening remarks I made it clear that I thought it necessary for the Minister of Supply to have some assistance.

Sir H. Williams: Then I do not understand the hon. Baronet at all; he objects to what he regards as essential. 1 was one of those who were very doubtful, and I am still very doubtful, whether the establishment of a Ministry of Supply is necessary or desirable, but certainly if the new Minister is to do his job, which I am certain will be one leading to a great deal of interrogation in this House, it is absolutely essential that he should have a Parliamentary Secretary to assist in the work in this House and in a Department which will be spending roughly £100,000,000 a year and is to be a very active Department. It would be an intolerable burden to impose on any Cabinet Minister to ask him to work unaided. In connection with the analogy of the Lord Privy Seal the hon. Baronet pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had a. great deal of help from the Chancellor of the Duchy. It is quite true that my right hon. Friend had a great deal of help in the conduct of the Bill through the House, and that he is having day-today help because of the position that my right hon. Friend occupies as a colleague of the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence; but there is a limit to the capacity even of my right hon. Friend. He is charged with food defence, and in that capacity has an office somewhere down the road. He has to walk —not a great distance —to the Committee of Imperial Defence. He has to walk across to the Home Office to help the Lord Privy Seal. It is now suggested that we should ask him to go up the road to Mill bank and help my right hon. Friend in the Ministry of Supply. Apparently one thing that will be necessary will be a supply of shoe-leather to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. This additional task is one which could not be conveniently or efficiently done by my right hon. Friend, having regard to his existing obligations and I do not understand the attitude of the Liberal Party which demands a Ministry of Supply, but does not want that Ministry to be efficient

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Our attitude to this Bill should be made plain at the outset. If these Amendments are pressed to a division we shall certainly vote for the retention of the Clause as it stands. Some hon. Members seem to forget that we are living in a world which demands new ideas and not in Victorian times when Departments of State were manned by a few people. What determines our attitude, is the answer to the question, "Is this necessary and will it tend to efficiency?" We know the burdens which Ministers are already bearing as the result of recent legislation. A new policy of this description demands that the people who fill these offices, should be those who will bring about the maximum amount of efficiency. We are of opinion that anybody's job is nobody's job and that in setting up a new State Department Parliament should see to it that it is staffed by men who will devote the whole of their attention to its work. The attitude of this party was plainly set out in a statement issued at the Southport Conference entitled "Labour and Defence." That statement was accepted with very few dissentients at Southport, and it summed up the party attitude in this manner:
It is clear, therefore, that on the efficiency of the machinery of Supply the safety of the nation may depend.
If that is correct, and we accept it, then it means that the Ministry should be adequately and efficiently staffed. The statement also says:
The machinery of Supply must be efficient. It must be able to meet the needs of the fighting forces both quantitatively and qualitatively. It must be smooth and speedy in its operation and, secondly, though not less in importance, it must be economical and it must permit of planning.
If those requirements are to be fulfilled the Ministry must be adequately staffed. This Bill, in our opinion, is not comprehensive enough. We are not satisfied with it in every respect. Our attitude will be one of endeavouring to improve the Bill and making it more efficient, wherever we think that can be done. We hope to produce evidence to convince the Committee of the necessity of improving the Bill and, above all, of ensuring that the Ministry will be properly manned.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I agree with those who have said that if we are to have

a Ministry of Supply it should be adequately and efficiently staffed and on that point I do not think there is any difference of opinion in the Committee. But there is another aspect of this question. We must not always assume that the efficiency of a Department is dependent on having the largest possible number of Ministers and assistant Ministers. Efficiency is built up, in the first place, by having an efficient Ministry. If there is work for an Under-Secretary to do then, of course, it is so much the better if the Minister has an efficient Undersecretary. Some of us have yet to be convinced, however, that there will be work for an Under-Secretary in this new Department. Possibly there will be. Of course hon. Members above the Gangway wish to extend the Civil Service in this country as far as possible. We understand their point of view. But there is the possibility that, at some time, a Ministry of Supply may no longer be necessary, and if you have permanently fixed in the saddle a Minister and an Under-Secretary, it will be very difficult to abolish those offices.
For a great many years I have watched the gradual growth of Ministries. A new Ministry usually begins in a comparatively small way, probably for the purpose of dealing with some national emergency, at a time when the House of Commons and the nation are only too willing to give it all the support they can. Times change, and perhaps we reach a period when the new Department is no longer necessary, but by that time there is a colossal staff and it is almost impossible to reduce it. I would ask the Committee to consider the number of Ministers who are already dealing with these questions. There is the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and others. Surely it should be easy to meet the demand that it is necessary to have a Minister to answer for these matters, either here or in another place. If there is really the great amount of extra work about which we have heard, there are other Ministries, such as the Ministry of Pensions—the work of which is not increasing, and we hope will never have to increase. Some of us can remember only too well the promises that were made from that Front Bench about reductions in the number of Ministries being made when it was possible to do so. At a time like the present


when the question of expenditure is very important, the strongest possible case should be made out, before we consent to the appointment of an additional Under-Secretary. We should be on our guard against doing anything which may be superfluous or unnecessary.
There is another point which is purely a House of Commons point, but is, I think, of some substance. We are rapidly reaching a position in which, if there were a Government with a narrow majority, we should find that nearly 50 per cent. of the supporters of that Government were for all practical purposes either in office or getting on that way. That is not the way to encourage freedom and independence in the House of Commons. The effectiveness of the House of Commons depends very much on the freedom of a large number of its Members to express independent views. Now and then we are told that there is to be a free vote on some special issue. When we have a free vote it is never clear whether Ministers are free to vote as they like or not. But a junior Minister who is wholeheartedly wrapped up in his work, and who is loyal to his chief, will find himself in a position of great difficulty if his chief votes in one Lobby while he votes in another. That applies with even greater force perhaps to the case of Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
I think we should regard this matter, not from the point of view of handicapping the new Ministry in any way, but from the wider and more permanent Parliamentary point of view of the possible effects of this growth of Ministries which is going on at the present time, almost regardless of finance and the fact that the power of the Treasury to-day is much less than it was formerly. I think many hon. Members of the Committee will feel that it is right to make some protest on these lines and to indicate that we would prefer, if it were possible, for the Minister to say that he could get along without this suggested help. Of course, if he says he cannot do so, we must accept that. But we all know from experience that we have in the right hon. Gentleman a man of exceptional capacity and industry, who will be able to do the work of two men. Moreover, as he is a member of the Liberal wing of the Government, one presumes that he can always, if an emergency arises, rely on

the Liberal party combining as one man to help him. That being the case, it seems to me that the necessity for an Under-Secretary hardly arises, and that the project might go by the board. There has been no argument for it, except that adduced by hon. Members above the Gangway, which was an unsatisfactory one from the point of view of efficiency—but we are used to that. Perhaps the Minister will secure that this Liberal Amendment is adopted.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to allow himself to be brow-beaten by his ex-associates of the Liberal party, or to be cajoled and flattered by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) into accepting this Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) has said, we on these benches desire that the Bill should be an effective one and that the Ministry of Supply should be strong and comprehensive, and to that end we intend to move certain Amendments later. To us it seems inconceivable that even the powers which the Bill now proposes to confer upon the new Minister, much less the greater powers which we hope will be conferred upon him if our later Amendments are accepted, could be exercised by the Minister without the assistance of an Under-Secretary. The Liberal Amendment is in the tradition of the May Report. It proposes a pettifogging economy such as those with which the Liberal party has on many critical occasions been associated. This is trying to spoil the ship for lack of a ha'porth of tar. That is reflected in the suggestion that the Minister should be deprived of an assistant for the sake of a saving of 01 per cent., or whatever the salary of an Under-Secretary may be, relative to the total expenditure which the Minister will control.
Whatever may have been said in support of the Amendment from the Liberal benches, the point which is now before the Committee is whether or not the Minister is to have the assistance of an Under-Secretary. May I give one further reason in support of the view that he should have that assistance? I was sorry that the hon. Member for Torquay thought the arguments hitherto advanced from these benches had not been substantial. I offer one concrete argument in favour of the Minister of Supply being


assisted by an Under-Secretary. If any Minister in the whole range of Government is likely to be made the object of representations of every sort—some I hope from the trade unions and some I fear from certain capitalist interests, whose aims may not always be in harmony with the views of those who desire to see value for money in the supply of arms and requisites—it will be the Minister of Supply. Undoubtedly there will be an enormous number of deputations and representations of every kind to the Minister. How can it be supposed that without the assistance of an Under Secretary the Minister will be able to deal with all these representations, and at the same time carry on the work of this Department? I hope that consideration will not be considered insubstantial, particularly by Members of the Conservative party who may have some relationships, in one capacity or another, with some of these deputations to which I have referred. Surely it is abundantly clear to-day that if we are to accept this Amendment it will be taken for granted—what really cannot be taken for granted at all—that this Minister will have less work, and less important work, than a great number of other Ministers who at the present time have Under-Secretaries as a matter of course.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I am delighted to hear the speech which we have just had from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). It shows that there is some common sense to be found sometimes on the benches opposite. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply Designate will appreciate the compliment paid to him by the speeches which we have heard. The Liberal party, with others, in this House have been agitating for a considerable time for the establishment of a Ministry of Supply, which I think the great majority of Members of this House feel to be a constructive part of our whole system of National Defence.

Sir P. Harris: You all opposed it.

Sir P. Hannon: The hon. Baronet opposite, who takes such a delightfully light-hearted view of these great public affairs, was one of the great supporters of this proposal. If we are to establish this Ministry at all, it must be a Ministry which can be completely efficient in the

discharge of its great obligations, and it seems to me that every assistance that Parliament can give to the Minister should be given to him in the discharge of the very heavy responsibilities which will rest upon him. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that a very large part of the Minister's time will be occupied in dealing with questions arising out of the multiplicity of projects with which he will have to deal by conference and consultation, on the side of both employers and of labour, in relation to supply, and from that point of view and also from the point of view of answering questions raised in this House it seems to me of profound importance that the Minister should have a competent Parliamentary Secretary to assist him in the discharge of his duties. Of course, the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) would not be discharging his traditional position in this House during the years in which he has been here if he did not take exception to everything that would be helpful and hopeful in the public life of this country, and to-day he carries on his own role of finding fault with something. If ever there was in this country a first-class fault finder, it is the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, and to-day he has been a first-class exponent of the weakness of his own position. I hope very much the Amendment will be withdrawn, and I would respectfully suggest to the hon. Member that we should give all the support in our power to the Minister in the discharge of his heavy responsibilities.

4.34 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster(Mr. W, S. Morrison): This Amendment, I think the Committee will have perceived, proceeds not from any practical merits in itself but in furtherance of some theoretical preconception, which is so frequently conceived as a principle, by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) who moved it. Really, no arguments have been addressed to the Committee why the Minister of Supply should not have a Parliamentary Secretary, and indeed this Amendment has been commended to the Committee, not on that ground, but upon the ground that it is alleged that there are too many other Ministers. Surely that is a topic which is of much larger scope and quite inappropriate to discuss on this Amendment. The hon. Member said that there are too many Under-


Secretaries attached to the Admiralty and the War Office. There are ample opportunities on the Votes for those Departments on which that matter can be raised, and on which the Departments can, and I have no doubt they will, vindicate themselves from the charge of superfluity which is brought against them. The point here is perfectly simple. The Minister of Supply will have very heavy duties to perform. He will also have to be in constant touch with the House of Commons, and both from the point of view of the Minister and the efficient discharge of his duties and from the point of view of keeping the House of Commons constantly informed of the transactions of the Department, it is necessary that he should have this assistance. I hope the Committee will not proceed to a Division on this Amendment, because I am certain that it would have very few supporters in the Lobby.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Mander: The right hon. Gentleman has made quite clear the object of the Amendment. It is not intended to be an Amendment to try and prevent an Undersecretary being appointed. Its object is to raise a very much wider question. I was rather afraid—

Mr. Logan: On a point of Order. If what the hon. Member says is correct, then what relevance has the Amendment to the Clause?

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) for calling my attention to the point, and I will watch what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) says upon it with even greater care.

Mr. Mander: I was rather afraid when I moved the Amendment that my hon. Friends above the Gangway might be tempted to take the line that they did take. Of course it is very comprehensible from their point of view, because we all realise that probably within a period of some six months the hon. Members above the Gangway will be transferred from the places which they now occupy and will be sitting on the benches opposite and will have a desire to occupy as many offices as they possibly can. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why cannot you think that?"] We are taking a more detached

and objective line than hon. Members above the Gangway. I think the object of the Amendment has been achieved, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be good enough to do this: If he will, I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment. Will he on a suitable opportunity convey to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the arguments that have been put forward, by supporters of the Government as well as from this side, as to the broader question of the gradual increase of offices in the Government? If he will be good enough to undertake to do that, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: The next Amendment that I select is the one in line 4, to leave out paragraph (c) and I think the one which follows it, to leave out paragraph (d), must be regarded as consequential upon it.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out paragraph (c).
I think this Amendment raises to a considerable extent the same point, and there will be no necessity to go into many arguments in connection with it. The point that I wish to raise is with regard to the gradual increase of Ministers. It is not desirable to appoint a new paid Minister of Supply when the difficulty could be got over by appointing a Minister of Supply from one of the sinecure offices that now exist. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should be appointed Lord President of the Council. I think the present occupier of that office, a man of great ability and distinction, is not perhaps absolutely essential in the position that he occupies. He has been able to make an extended and no doubt very interesting tour of the Empire during the past six months, and I sincerely suggest that the time has come when that office might be suitably vacated and my right hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Burgin) might be appointed Minister of Supply and Lord President of the Council at the same time. If it is thought that that is too high an honour to confer upon him, no doubt there could be some change about, and he could be made Chancellor of the Duchy, or Lord Privy Seal, or something of that kind. My point is that it is absolutely unnecessary to appoint a new Minister when you could make use of


one of the sinecure offices that exist at the present time, without adding to the pay roll of new offices in the House of Commons. To do that is agreeable to the Executive. It increases their power as against the House of Commons as a whole, and I venture to say that it is a tendency that ought to be strongly resisted by hon. Members on back benches, and particularly by those who have no immediate desire to occupy any of these posts.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The effect of the Amendment, if it were carried, would be to prevent the Minister of Supply from sitting in the House of Commons, and I think the general sense of the Committee would be against such a proposal, because clearly the duties of the Minister are those which are proper for the House of Commons to supervise with the assistance of the Minister himself. We have always in this House, as I understand it, taken the line that where a Minister is charged with a Department of a spending character, particularly when questions of contracts and so on are concerned, it is desirable that the Minister should be answerable to the House of Commons. The effect of the Amendment, if it were accepted, would be that we should not be able to increase the number of Ministers in the House of Commons, and either the Minister of Supply himself would have to sit in another place or some other Minister now in the Commons would have to be translated there in order to make room for him. I think the general sense of the Committee is that in a matter of this sort it is advisable for the Minister to sit in the Commons, and for that reason I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I should like to raise a matter of detail which is, however, a matter of some importance for the efficient working of the new Ministry. I see that in Subsection (5) of this Clause the Minister is taking powers to
appoint such other secretaries and such officers and servants, and there shall be paid to them such salaries and allowancès, as the Minister may, with the sanction of the Treasury, determine.

I would like to know from the Minister, in the first place, whether these salaries will be fixed independently of any scale which now applies to other Departments, and if that is so, I should be glad to know what salaries will be paid. I have been made aware, to put it quite bluntly, that considerable dissatisfaction exists among civil servants who are on the scientific side. I do not want to go into details, but I have here, as a matter of fact, a communication from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, who say that the salaries at present paid to the scientific heads of the War Office, for instance, who are now to be brought under the Ministry of Supply, are most inadequate in relation to the responsibilities of the posts.
I gather that in the past an attempt has been made by these scientifically-qualified civil servants to get their status raised and their salaries in line with the general standards applying to the administrative staffs. I believe those efforts have failed in the past. The War Office said "We cannot deal with it because there are relativities with other Departments." Then an attempt was made to get to the centre, to the Treasury, but again representations on salaries were denied to this body. I have been looking into some of the"relativities, and while the salaries appear to me to be adequate as salaries there can be no doubt that these men are in an inferior position to those on the general administrative staffs. I wonder whether it is still true in the Civil Service that a man who has taken" Greats"cannot command a higher status that these other men. As my hon. Friend said just now, in a new world we want new services, and with the increasing importance which attaches to scientific knowledge and scientific equipment these men will be absolutely essential to the successful working of the Department.
You cannot argue a case like this across the Floor of the House, but I would ask the Minister to look into this matter with a fresh mind, and if possible to meet this professional organisation in order that they may at least present their case. I can assure him that they have grievances which they feel deeply—I know they feel deeply on the question of status alone—and if he will meet them and allow them to state their case I shall be satisfied, and I am sure that he will then have taken


action at the beginning of his career at the Ministry of Supply which will help to create a favourable atmosphere and to sweeten the whole attitude of these men.

4.48 p.m.

Sir P. Hannon: Before the Minister replies I would ask whether those matters cannot be determined by the National Industrial Council of the Civil Service, the Whitley Council of the Civil Service, which takes into consideration all questions regarding conditions of employment and salary. During the long years I spent as representative of this House on the Whitley Council of the Civil Service all questions of this character were dealt with very impartially and fairly by the representatives of the Treasury and by the heads of the Departments concerned, and I do not think any real difficulties arose. I am certain that where any technical problem arises as to the status of civil servants in the professional or in the administrative classes the Whitley Council will deal with it on broad and generous lines and will submit to the Minister considerations which will command his sympathetic attention. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) need be afraid that in the case of a new Ministry like this, which is embarking upon very serious duties in relation to supplies of munitions, clothing and all sorts of other things for the Defence Services, the Whitley Council will not continue to discharge its responsibilities fairly and squarely.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: It may be that the point which I am going to raise can be dealt with administratively, and, if so, I should like the Minister to inform us whether it is his intention to deal with it in that way, because if not I hope it will be considered between now and Report stage from the point of view of making provision for it in the Bill. I contend that we are not going far enough in just appointing officers to posts, and that to get the most efficient and most economical results it will be necessary to have a supply council. In my view that Supply council should be presided over by the Minister of Supply, and at least one other Minister should be a member of it, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade. That council should have the right to

summon to it the heads of the different Departments which may be affected and it might be necessary for it to have either a weekly or fortnightly survey of all that was going on. It would be necessary to check up what had been done and was being done, to look into deliveries, to speed up supplies and to give directions in various matters. In the train this morning I was reading the Report of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture and Trade in Armaments, and in recommendation No. 6 on page 53 they state:
We recommend that the Government should assume complete responsibility for the arms industry in the United Kingdom and should organise and regulate the necessary collaboration"—

Sir P. Hannon: On a point of Order. I apologise for interrupting, but does not this question arise under Clause 2 rather than under Clause 1? Clause 1 gives the Minister all the necessary powers to discharge the functions of his office. I think the hon. Member is anticipating Clause 2.

Mr. Smith: No, I am not anticipating Clause 2. I am fully conversant with what it does. What I am saying is that we shall not get the best results out of the Bill if we are going to depend upon officers of Departments. It will be necessary for some collaboration between the heads of the various Departments and the Members of the Cabinet, and if we part with Clause 1 we shall be prevented from raising the issue in the way I am raising it now.

The Chairman: I must reply to that point of Order. What the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) is saying is permissible on Clause 1, but if it is discussed on Clause 1 I cannot allow it to be discussed again on Clause 2.

Mr. Smith: I will respect that Ruling, Sir Dennis, because I should like us to have the broadest Debate possible on Clause 2. I hope you will bear that in mind. I shall conclude by just finishing the quotation from the Commission's report.

The Chairman: I did not tell the hon. Member that he was out of order. What I said was that he was in order in raising this question on Clause 1. I am not saying that it will be in order on Clause 2, but I must warn him that if I do admit this discussion on Clause 1, I cannot allow it to be repeated on Clause 2.

Mr. Smith: I want it to be emphasised that the only point I am raising is the appointment of a supply council. I am raising no other issue at this stage. The quotation from the Royal Commission's report goes on:
… between the Government and private industry.
I want to emphasise that this responsibility should be exercised through a controlling body presided over by a Minister responsible to Parliament and having executive powers in peace time and in war time. Now that we have decided to set up a Ministry of Supply the next logical step is to create a supply council, which would deal with all matters from research to design and from design to test, and in addition to a central supply council there ought to be regional councils. Unless we organise the production of these goods on a scientific basis we shall not get the results for which we are hoping.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Will the Minister in his reply indicate how appointments to his staff will be made, whether the officers will be transferred from other Departments and whether the recognised Civil Service scale will be followed? The reason I ask is because I have some knowledge of the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), and know that there has been some dissatisfaction expressed already, particularly among persons handling the scientific side of the business. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether he is prepared to deal with representations made to him or made through the Whitley Council. Certainly the Whitley Council would be very good machinery if it could be used for this purpose. If not, will he receive representations made direct to him by the professional association concerned? There is a vital point of principle in the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) and I should like to know whether the Minister proposes to accept the suggestion in the report of the Royal Commission. I feel that it will be absolutely necessary for the Minister to have a supply council. Perhaps he has in mind the machinery which he proposes to set up for the purpose. However, it is essential that he should have such a council of persons, who could

advise him from time to time and whom he could consult on essential matters of supply. Whether the system should be worked regionally is another matter, but in the first instance he ought to have a central body to advise him as to how supplies are proceeding, as to the rate of production in certain industries and how various matters can be co-ordinated.

4.58 p.m.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Burgin): The questions which I have been asked fall into two groups, some dealing with a Supply Council and the others dealing with staff. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) asked whether it was advisable to add words to the Clause or whether what he had in mind could be substantially dealt with administratively. Let me tell him at once that it is going to be dealt with administratively. I understand entirely the point of view to which he has given expression. It is quite clear that in connection with such matters as the purchase of stocks of raw material the contact between the new Department which this Bill sets up and the Board of Trade, for instance, must be close, intimate and continuous, and administrative arrangements to that end have already been set up. I do not think the Committee would expect me at this stage, before the Royal Assent has been given to the Bill, to say whether or not I have determined to use a regional machinery—I can see a number of arguments in favour of such a proposal—but I can give the hon. Member the assurance for which he is asking by saying that the points to which he has called attention are very present to my mind. From design to test things must be supervised and checked. Because an order has been placed one cannot assume that deliveries are going on, and there must be checks to ascertain that deliveries are coming forward satisfactorily. For all such purposes there must be something in the nature of a council, board or committee, whatever one may call it, almost continuously in session, presided over by the new Minister himself and having very wide powers. That, of course, is different from the Advisory Committee of Industry who will advise on other matters to which I referred on the Second Reading. I hope the hon. Member will feel, with that assurance, that the main purpose of his question is answered and that it is not necessary or


practical, or good draftsmanship, that these matters should be put in Clause 1. Clause 1 is the right way to set up the new Ministry and say what the officers are, and what their powers are to be; then we proceed to give the powers chronologically through the Bill to the body set up.

Mr. Ede: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to confine his council to civil servants, or will there be representatives of industry, including workpeople, on it?

Mr. Burgin: I thought I had made it quite clear that the council that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent was asking for was essentially an administrative council. The Advisory Council of Industry is an entirely separate body. There are two different bodies. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, if I understood him aright, was dealing with the ordinary day to day matters, which of course would be dealt with by a body composed of Civil Servants, with the addition of gentlemen in a high position who are willing to give their services gratuitously to the State. It might be possible to add some of them but, broadly speaking, it is a Civil Service body. The other body, on which industry, employers and workmen, may well be represented, is another matter; it is intended for keeping contact with industry.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Is the Principal Supply Officers Committee going to continue in being, and will it be presided over by the right hon. Gentleman or by the Chancellor of the Duchy?

Mr. Burgin: I should have thought it would be presided over by a civil servant.

Mr. Lees-Smith: It has been presided over hitherto by the Minister for the Coordination of Defence. The present Dominions Secretary did it while he held the office.

Mr. Burgin: Perhaps I am referring to another committee. There is, of course, the Supply Board, presided over by the senior civil servant who happens to be destined to be the head of the Ministry of Supply when it is set up. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was referring to that. The other committee, which deals with the three Services, will, I think, continue to be presided over by the Minister

for the Co-ordination of Defence. Both will continue in being.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Not the Chancellor of the Duchy?

Mr. Burgin: I will make inquiries. Coming to the question of staff, I realise that this new Department will be a very large one, and the family of human beings which it will contain will be very big. There is a reference to 50,000 people even at the outset. Therefore, I want the relationship right from the start to be very supple. The actual method of appointment of the staff is through an establishment officer who is himself a civil servant, who settles rates of pay and other conditions. There is a reference by either side to the Treasury and, if necessary, to an independent tribunal. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) asked me how the staff were to be recruited. The figure of £30,000 which appears in the Explanatory Memorandum represents the nucleus of the headquarters staff, the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and some five or six others. In the first instance there is a given job of work for the Ministry to do and a given block of Civil Service assistance to deal with it, and the first task of the Ministry will be to take over from the War Office a number of different sections which are allotted in toto to the new Ministry and to take over the staff with them; certain particulars are set out in columns 663 and 664 of the Official Report of 8th June showing the respective numbers. I cannot enter into a discussion of a matter which I have heard from the hon. Member for the first time, but perhaps he will feel assured that his purpose has been achieved by calling my attention to the matters that he has raised.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(General powers of Minister.)

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out "Subject to the provisions of this Sub-section," and to insert:
It shall be the duty of the Minister to examine into and organise the sources of supply and the labour available for the supply of any articles required for the public service and.
We attach considerable importance to this proposed change in the Clause, the


reasons for desiring which we explained on Second Reading. What we propose is to omit the limiting condition imposed upon the exercise by the Minister of his powers, the condition, namely, that no transfer can be made of any of the powers which, apart from this limitation, he could use, except by agreement with the Government Departments in which the power now lies. We, therefore, propose this Amendment, to be followed by another to omit the proviso to Subsection (1). The argument for the Amendment is very simple. It is that we desire to have a real Ministry of Supply and desire to have it now. That summarises the argument. We have for long contended in favour of the setting up of this Ministry of Supply, and we hold the view that failure to set it up hitherto is largely responsible for the failure of the arms programme in terms of quantity, in terms of speed, and in terms of the prices charged. We have for a long time demanded a Ministry of Supply not in the form of a sub-section of the War Office, which is substantially what we are doing in the Bill. We demand it for the supply of all the requisites of defence, with one exception, by way of all the three fighting services. We and many others, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) among them, have held the view that long ago—but better late than never—we should have set up a Supply Ministry with very wide powers, allowance being made for the difference between peace and war, which continually dwindles under our eyes, comparable to those of the Ministry of Munitions in the War period though not identical in all details. At any rate, the Ministry of Munitions did have power to furnish supplies.

Mr. Burgin: Mr. Burgin indicated dissent.

Mr. Dalton: I do not want to enter into an historical discussion, so I will leave that point and argue on the merits. The merits now, as we see them, are that the Minister should have powers, to use forthwith, which will enable him to examine into and organise the sources of supply and the labour available for the supply of any articles required for the public service. We want it to be indisputably clear that the Minister can, without any further negotiations, bargainings and discussions with any Department now re-

sponsible for the supply of any of these articles, carry out all these Supply functions.
I referred to a possible exception. My hon. Friends, in a careful and detailed report submitted at the Labour Party Conference at Southport, made an exception of naval shipbuilding. We are quite prepared that naval shipbuilding should remain outside the Minister's powers, owing to the fact that the Admiralty are dealing with very large units of production and that they have long tradition and knowledge of this specialised work. But we see no reason for leaving the Air Ministry out. It may be true now that the production of aircraft is better than it was—indeed there has been a very rapid acceleration—but when we consider the confessions that were made a little over a year ago as to our failure to that date, we do not consider that there is any reason for excluding from the control of the Minister the production of aircraft, and this not only because we believe that the rate of production can be still further improved but because it is part of the argument for a Ministry of Supply that a Minister responsible for one of the great Fighting Services should not himself be responsible for the details of Supply organisation. He should be in a position to devote his mind to those military, naval or air problems which would arise in the event of war and for which he must be constantly preparing—strategical problems involving consultations with representatives of other Powers, problems quite separate from problems of Supply organisation yet quite sufficient to occupy all the energies and all the mind of an able man. Therefore, there seems to be an argument in favour of the taking of this Supply organisation away from the three heads of the Fighting Services and concentrating it in the new Minister, partly in order to relieve them of a pressure which is intolerable under modern conditions and partly in order to improve the efficiency of the Supply machinery by giving one Minister control of it all.

Mr. Burgin: I should like to be clear in my own mind. The hon. Gentleman says "partly to relieve them." Does his argument go so far as to say that these powers should be taken over even though the Service Ministers concerned objected?

Mr. Dalton: Yes. That is the whole essence of my argument. Our argument


is that, in order to relieve these other Ministers from Supply considerations and to enable them to concentrate upon the consideration of getting the supplies required—their technical advisers will advise what supplies are required but, given that they know what they want—in my submission the job of getting what they want should be transferred to and concentrated in one Minister in respect of all three Services. This is particularly desirable if we are to get full value in terms of large quantities, an effective scheme of priorities and reasonable prices. Otherwise we are dealing piecemeal with the matter; there are other legislative proposals to come forward on this subject. Unless the Minister has all these powers in respect of Supply to all the Forces, then, in our view, he is not given a full opportunity to do efficiently that job for which the Bill is being put forward. I do not propose to elaborate the argument further. I repeat that we have put down the Amendment because we desire a real Ministry of Supply and to have it now, and not merely a partial Ministry and a long delay supervening before any further changes are made.
There is one further point arising out of the question which was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). The Minister spoke of the Principal Supply Officers Committee which, I gather, includes such personnel as the Quartermaster of the Forces and even some, I am told, from the Post Office. However the committee may be constituted—and no doubt that can be ascertained—of those who advise the right hon. Gentleman, I was astonished at his reply, which was that even when the Bill has become law that committee will continue to be presided over by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. Here too, as in the case which I have been putting to the Committee, surely the Minister of Supply should take over. If, during the period before there was a Minister of Supply, for certain functions relating to Supply in which the three fighting Services, and possibly certain other Departments having an interest in Supply, were associated, it was necessary to bring in the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence because the problems of Supply were common to all the Services, surely now, when we are to have a Minister of Supply he should take over from his colleague the Minister for

the Co-ordination of Defence this particular very key committee, and should himself preside over and direct it.
Possibly after a little further information has been furnished to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not blame him for not having it at his fingers' ends now—he may be able to tell us how far the Principal Supply Officers Committee which, I am advised, is very important, is to be kept within the purview of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and what reason there is for not turning it over to the Minister of Supply. I have endeavoured to give, on broad lines, the reason why we put down this Amendment. It is an Amendment to which we attach very great importance, and if the Minister cannot see his way to meet us we shall have to carry it to a Division.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: This Amendment raises important issues and I shall have to speak upon them for longer than I would have liked. My remarks will be based upon the words which appear on page 14 of the pamphlet "Labour and Defence" which was submitted to the Southport Conference of the Labour party. In that pamphlet there appears this:
In the last War it was necessary to maintain nine men in industry to every two men in the fighting line. Towards the end of the War it became increasingly necessary to withdraw men from the fighting line to maintain the industry of the nation on which the fighting Services depended for their equipment. The strength at which a, nation can maintain its fighting forces is, therefore dependent upon its industrial, financial and commercial strength.
Before I proceed to make my point I would refer to the speech made by the Minister of Supply at Blackpool, when he spoke of the position of men in industry. The reference which the right hon. Gentleman made caused me to feel a little uneasy. Unfortunately I have not adopted my usual practice of preserving that speech, with the result that I cannot quote from it, but I hope that as I have raised the matter in this way the Minister will reassure us regarding the uneasiness created by one passage in his speech dealing with labour—provided, of course, that he was correctly reported.
When the Bill becomes an Act a new responsibility will be undertaken by representative people throughout this country. Representing our people, I say that we are quite prepared to accept our share


of any responsibility, but having said that, I must point out that we do not want a repetition of what occurred in the last War. I have here a cutting showing that from 1914 to 1918—I can quote from it if necessary to substantiate what I am saying—the trade unions gave up condition after condition which they had established by years of sacrifice, and all kinds of concessions that they had won from the organised employers. They gave away the benefit of undertakings that had been given to them relating to piece-work prices, and many principles which they had established in the workshops, in order that the nation might secure the maximum results from the efforts that were being made. What took place was that we were subjected to a national lockout which occupied our people during six months in 1922, and that the Miners' Federation agreed to put forward no further demand for increases in wages on condition that the cost of living was kept to a certain standard. Nevertheless the cost of living rose considerably while wages remained low, and no steps were taken to carry out the undertaking that was given to Mr. Robert Smillie, the miners' representative. Our people gave up all that during the last War, but they have been subjected from 1931 to the present time to the mean means test and all that it means to our people.
I suggest to the Minister of Supply that he should undertake to consult the whole of the engineering trade unions about the policy to be adopted, and that during the consultations he should give guarantees upon a number of issues that will be raised. I suggest that such guarantees will not be good enough if they come from one individual. I am not speaking critically of the Minister as an individual, and I do not want anyone to think that I am; but we have had experience of that kind of thing. I have it here on record that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and other people who used to be Members of this House but now sit in another place, gave promise after promise and assurance after assurance. Based upon that experience we now say that the assurances of individuals are not good enough and that assurances should be embodied in an Act of Parliament in order that we can see that they are carried out. I make a special plea for the serious consideration of that proposal.
I speak for the section of our movement in which we can obtain our living only by selling our labour power. All our eggs are in one basket. We are not like many people here; if we do not obtain a return from one place, we cannot make up for that by getting a return from some other place. For the people with whom I am concerned if there is no work there are no wages, and from 1931 to the present time no work and no wages have meant the harsh, mean, means test staring us in the face. This obtains even at the present time, when our men are working in the factories and exerting the maximum amount of human energy in order to obtain the greatest possible amount of return for the efforts that are being made in the workshops, and when they themselves are making suggestions in order to increase efficiency and output. As a result of all this, our men are getting increased earnings, but they are saving them in order to provide for a rainy day and a better holiday. When the time comes along and their services are no longer required, those savings will be at the disposal of the means test officer, despite the great services and the great effort which our people will have made.
If there is to be any fair play and justice to our people the mean means test should be reconsidered by the Cabinet and withdrawn in order that our people shall not have to face it. Those Members who have seen the columns of the "Manchester Guardian" the "Daily Telegraph," the "Times" and the "Daily Herald," in particular, will have seen huge advertisements for pattern makers, tool makers, instrument makers, special machinists and inspectors. It is well-known that in that developing industry and the demands which are being made upon it, those men are the key men and will be the most important. I suggest that the Minister of Supply should consider whether the time has not arrived when he should have power to direct where these men should be sent. The question of priorities should be introduced and the services of those men should be concentrated upon the most urgent national needs. This is raising the important question of the training of apprentices. I was reading to-day —

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going rather far from the terms of the


Amendment and from the points raised in the words which it is proposed should be inserted.

Mr. Smith: I wanted to direct attention to the fact that if the Minister does not take the steps which I am suggesting he will not be able, owing to the restricted supply of labour, especially the labour of the men about which I am speaking, to carry out the proposals of the Bill.

The Chairman: The hon. Member may pursue his argument if he will bear in mind what I said, that he must keep within the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Smith: I apologise, Sir Dennis, and I will keep to that point. It has been stated that the young men at the universities are to be allowed to carry on at the universities when their term is finished. When we raised this question in the House we were told that there would be equal treatment for the men when called up. Our point was that, if this was going to be done for well placed people at the universities, it should be done for the apprentices, especially those who are in their last year. It is most important that these boys who are being called up, and especially those who are being trained in the trades to which I have referred, should receive the technical training that is so necessary in order that they may be equipped technically to play a part—

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is going rather wide. For instance, I do not find anything at all in this Amendment which deals with the training of apprentices.

Mr. Smith: The Amendment states:
and the labour available for the supply.
It is well known by those who are acquainted with the industries with which we are dealing that this matter is causing serious concern, not only to the trade unions, but also to the big employers. The big employers are concerned as to whether they are going to get these boys back.

The Chairman: That does not justify the hon. Member in going into a general discourse on how the Minister should organise labour. I must ask him to keep more closely to the Amendment.

Mr. Smith: I hope the Minister is going to see that these boys, who have received

five and six years' training, will be put back to the trade. That is the matter about which the trade unions and the employers are concerned.
I want now to deal with the question of sources of supply, and to suggest that the time has arrived, especially in view of the serious situation in which we are, when there should be a pooling of ideas throughout industry. There is a tendency—indeed, it is more than a tendency, it is part of a policy—on the part of firms in competition with one another not to divulge trade secrets. There is a reluctance to pool ideas. I could, if it were necessary, give many concrete examples of this. I suggest that one of the first steps that the Minister will have to take will be to bring about a pooling of ideas, in order that the nation may obtain the best results from the whole of industry. The second point is that he should bring about a standardisation of the most efficient production methods. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when he was speaking about the need for a Ministry of Supply, talking about handing jigs out, and that kind of thing. While he was only speaking metaphorically, and we knew that it was not practicable to do that, still there was a great deal in what he said. The importance of ample supplies of jigs, tools, special metals and gauges is very great, for, in the event of war, the demand for these would be enormous, and months of very highly skilled work are needed in order to produce these means of supply. It is well known that in modern wars there is great wastage. A huge supply of spare parts would be required, and the usefulness of these would depend upon the accuracy of the tools, jigs and gauges. To take one example, in the case of some fuses 200 gauges are needed to produce a fuse, so that hon. Members will readily see the importance of organising the supply of jigs, tools and gauges.
The next point I want to make is as to the importance of machine tools. I find that even now we are importing tremendous quantities of machine tools. During the month of April, we imported into this country £124,731 worth of machine tools from Germany. While I realise the importance of maintaining our export trade, it is very important in modern industry, and especially in view


of the situation in which we might be involved, that we should develop machine tool production in this country. The Royal Commission which considered the private manufacture of armaments also put forward a suggestion of that character. Engineer Vice-Admiral Sir Harold Brown, a well-known and very competent civil servant, who, I understand, is Director General of Munitions production at the War Office, speaking at the annual dinner of the Machine Tool Trades Association, said that 25 per cent. of the £4,000,000 worth of tools ordered in 1938 were purchased from abroad, and that these were in the nature of specialised machines. That is alarming in the present state of affairs. It means that if, we are involved in a serious situation, we shall not have reached a stage in this country when we can produce these special machines right away to the extent that we shall require. Therefore, I suggest that the time has arrived when at least two national State factories should be set up, in order to carry through research, design, and the inter-manufacture of specialised machines of this character. I find that a very respected and competent civil servant states, in a book on "Experiments in State Control," that:
In the national factories established by the Ministry of Munitions, instructions were given for careful cost accounts to be kept. By this means it was possible to ascertain with great exactness the cost of production, and to compare costs in the different factories item by item.
In the course of the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission that considered the private manufacture of armaments. State official after State official, civil servant after civil servant, gave evidence of their experiences during the war which convinces us of the necessity for national factories of the kind we are advocating. In addition, I find that the right hon. Gentleman the member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) also supports us in this plea. He said in 1923, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, that the Government sent their repair work to the arsenals and dockyards because they did it for less money and because they were more efficient.
In conclusion, I want to draw the attention of the Committee again to the very efficient production which we are obtaining from the Royal Ordnance Factory which has been set up at Nottingham. Here I quote from "Machinery,"

which has been circulated with the compliments of the Director of Public Relations of the War Office. The statement is made:
Under the circumstances, the results which have been achieved at Nottingham have been remarkable.
There is also this further statement:
The development of the organisation to its present state of efficiency and high output is a truly remarkable achievement, which reflects considerable credit on all concerned.
Therefore, we have evidence from State Departments, from competent civil servants, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook, and from the Royal Ordnance Factory, of the efficient methods of and the necessity for State factories in order that we may obtain the most efficient results, and that we may be able to check the prices of the products produced in the State factories as compared with products produced by private enterprise, and thereby obtain the most economical results for the people of this country.

5.40 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I feel, and I think most Members of the Committee will feel, that the Bill is framed in very generous terms. The Minister is given very considerable powers to set up a really effective and proper Ministry of Supply. But it is rather suggested by the White Paper and by the statements of the Prime Minister that the duties and purposes of the new Department in its early stages should be comparatively limited, and that the Department should concentrate in the immediate future on carrying out work for the war ministries. That is not our conception of a Ministry of Supply. One of the strongest arguments for a Ministry of Supply is that it should co-ordinate, that it should prevent the overlapping and even competition which now occurs between the various Departments. It is common knowledge—I have had more than one case given to me personally—that many industries set off one Department against another. For instance, the Admiralty, which is a long-established Department, is often able to gut the first cut off the output of one particular industry or trade. It is true that we have had for two years a Ministry for the Coordination of Defence, and one of the main purposes of that Department was to prevent such overlapping and competition, but we have contended that on the


whole, on the scale on which it has been established, the Department has not achieved that purpose. I believe that the House and the country will not be satisfied with anything short of a real Ministry of Supply, not necessarily on the same scale, but on the same principle, as the Ministry of Munitions. Either the situation is serious or it is not. If it is as serious as we believe, and as I think the country believes, we have a right to ask that this new Department, which justifies the appointment of a new Minister, should have the duty and responsibility of concentrating on production and of preventing the overlapping and waste of energy, due to competition between Departments, which we believe is a serious weakness and a serious handicap—

Mr. Burgin: Would the hon. Baronet be good enough to give an instance where he suggests that competition has occurred between Departments? I ask for general information, because, on the information that I have, it does not happen. I shall be prepared to justify the White Paper, but let us begin where the need is greatest, and go on to other work as it arises. If the hon. Baronet has instances by which he can indicate to me in the most general terms the sort of case in which he says the Admiralty, for instance, gets what he calls the prime cut, I, of all people in the House, should be interested as a matter of research.

Sir P. Harris: The right hon. Gentleman has every right to challenge me. I am afraid I have not in my pocket an example. I have had examples given to me, but did not come prepared to give them to the right hon. Gentleman. I am very glad to hear that there is no competition and no overlapping between the Departments, and that the resources of the country have been evenly distributed between the great Service Departments. But, if there are none of these restrictions, the case for more concentration seems to be strengthened. The strongest case for creating this new Ministry is the argument that there should be one Minister and one Department controlling the productive power of the nation, in order to see that the best use is made of it.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: This Clause is, of course, the crux and centre of the whole Bill; and the House is indebted

to the hon. Gentleman and his Friends for moving this Amendment, which at least enables us to see clearly the character of the Bill and the way that it is proposed at present that it should operate. It the hon. Gentleman will not think me impertinent, may I congratulate him on the ingenuity with which he has found the necessary words to raise a very wide Debate within the scope of the Clause? This Bill is in effect a Ministry of Supply (Enabling) Bill. It gives the Government power to set up a Ministry of Supply, without further legislation, when they think it necessary. It leaves the decision as to the pace at which they shall move and the field that they shall cover to the Government, and not the House of Commons. I do not say that that is a bad system, but let us be clear what the Bill, under this Clause, envisages. This Bill comes at the end of a long controversy. The issue has been partly a matter of temperament. There are two ways of travelling in the tube. One is to approach the station as rapidly as possible, put your penny in the machine and get your ticket, and then get down the moving staircase as fast as possible. The Government's method has been more dilatory.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: They got on the wrong staircase.

Mr. Macmillan: And they are like those tiresome people who, having done that, stand in the middle of the staircase without moving and prevent other people from passing them. This Amendment, as I understand it, has two purposes. By proposing to leave out certain words from the Bill, it says, in effect, that the House of Commons now decides that there shall be a complete Ministry of Supply, covering all Departments; and then, by the ingeniously-framed initial words which it proposes to insert, it goes further. In agreeing to this Amendment, hon. Members would be deciding that, in view of the circumstances in Europe and the grim prospects that confront us every day, not to leave it to the Government, but to set up a Department with these full and comprehensive powers that would constitute a complete Ministry of Supply. I cannot claim expert knowledge, but, from the inquiries that I have made, I am satisfied that it would be better to set up the Ministry now, although I quite understand that the Government make take a different view.
The hon. Gentleman has repeated arguments which have been put forward during the last three or four years by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He has said that the object of the Ministry is to relieve the pressure on the heads of these great Departments. That is a very important point. My right hon. Friend, in an interruption, asked whether they were to be relieved of that pressure even if they objected. My memory goes back to a great Department which objected to having the supply of shells taken from it. Lord Kitchener objected. Many Members of this House can remember from their own experience when the supply of shells was limited to one round a day, feebly fired from our batteries, and we were told that it was all right; and it was only under great pressure that the power to control the supply of ordnance was transferred. I frankly admit, from the experience I have had in industries with which I am connected, that on these questions of priorities there has been great improvement, and I believe that the jealousies and overlapping have been largely ironed out in what was a kind of shadow Ministry of Supply, the committee of the Departments which had to deal with these matters. But I believe that the setting up of this full Ministry is necessary. I will prophesy that it will be done within six months, and, if the position deteriorates, very much sooner than that.
The Amendment widens considerably the powers, or the duties, which it is proposed to place on the Minister. It is clear, of course, that the duty of examination into and organisation of the sources of supply and the labour available is one that any Minister must perform if he is to do his work; but this specifically points out that the problem of Supply is not only a question of what you are to make but of what you are not to make. When labour of materials are limited—and labour is very limited at present—that is important. You will never deal with the price question, you will never deal with the profit question, unless you can deal with the general control of the materials and labour which are necessary.

Mr. Burgin: I interrupt with respect, because I am following my hon. Friend's argument with interest and with a considerable measure of sympathy. But he

appreciates that the very powers for which he is pleading are expressly given in the Bill. They are inherent in the powers given to the Minister by other Clauses.

Mr. Macmillan: I quite agree. They come in detail at a later stage in the Bill. But this is the really crucial Clause, which sets up the Bill; hence the importance of the matter at this point. This is not a matter of party difference. It is not a matter, perhaps of great moment—in the sense that I am certain that the Government will have to use these powers very rapidly—but I believe the Committee would be wise to see that, if the Minister cannot accept the Amendment to-day, he shall be shown by the expression of opinion from hon. Members, that the country and the House of Commons would support the most early and strenuous use of these powers, and that we should prefer to see, not these two, three or four bites at a cherry, but a decision taken to set up a complete Ministry of Supply at once.

5.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment whether he ought to press his decisions upon the other Departments even if they objected. I should think that that entirely depended on whether the objections were well founded. If they were not they should be swept aside. I think the Service Departments would have to bring forward very remarkable arguments indeed if they hoped to dispose of the logical case which has been presented by those who favour an all-embracing Ministry of Supply. Although the right hon. Gentleman may find it necessary to resist the Amendment, I cannot help feeling that it must rather make his mouth water. It cannot be very congenial to him to resist us when we bring forward an Amendment offering him such wide and considerable powers. We are really bringing him butter on a lordly dish, and, unfortunately for him, he is compelled to resist the offer.

Mr. G. Nicholson: Is that surprising, considering the fate of the gentleman who was offered the lordly dish?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: That fate has escaped my attention.

Mr. Nicholson: The poor gentleman had a tent peg—supplied, I suppose, by a Service Department—driven through his head.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I can tell the hon. Gentleman at once that that slipped my memory. My hon. Friend in moving the Amendment, while agreeing that he did not wish to see certain powers in respect of shipbuilding taken away from the Admiralty, said that he would like to see the powers of the Ministry of Supply extended to the Air Ministry. We shall very likely be told, in reply to what has been said, that production at the Air Ministry is in course of such rapid and successful improvement that it would be a very dangerous thing to interfere at this juncture, as it would be likely to check production. But just as the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has become essential to the Minister of Supply, so similarly the Secretary of State for Air, since his appointment, has also been completely absorbed in questions of supply and production of aircraft.
That is not the proper function of the head of one of the Service Departments. The head of a Service Department should be occupied with the question of the making of plans and the co-ordination of plans for war. It is his duty, knowing what the function of this particular service is going to be, to elicit from his professional advisers the weapons which he will require to enable the Service to fulfil the function allotted to it by those who prepare the plans. The professional advisers having informed the Minister what weapons they will require, the production, of those weapons should be turned over lock, stock and barrel to the Minister of Supply. That I believe to be the logical and efficient way in which to go about that work, and it is not the proper function of the head of one of our great Defence Services to be occupied as largely as they all are at the present moment with questions of Supply.
There was another point of great importance to which reference was made. It certainly seems at first sight anomalous that the Principal Supply Officers Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence should continue to function when we now have a Minister of Supply. The answer, I imagine, is that the Minister of Supply is not taking over all Supply and

that on that account the Principal Supply Officers Committee is to continue to function. Even if that is so, it is most important that the relations in this matter and the responsibilities as between the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, the Minister of Supply and the Principal Supply Officers Committee should be most carefully worked out and clearly laid down to the House. Perhaps the Minister may be able to say something upon that point.
I should also like to mention the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith). The difficulties which have been, and are being, experienced as regards the armaments programme are very largely due to the loss of skill which has taken place on account of the prolonged period of unemployment through which we have been passing. The intensive rearmament programmes now in hand are repairing that loss of skill very rapidly, and the institution of the Minister of Supply and his leaders will no doubt further intensify the process. But the rearmament programmes will come to an end, and the Minister of Supply will apparently come to an end also in three years. What will happen to all this labour which is being trained by such intensive methods at the present moment? That will be a most formidable problem, and it is on that account that it is most essential that the work of the Ministry of Supply should not merely be confined to our rearmament programme, but should be concerned with linking that programme to the general industrial production of the country.
The words used in the Amendment are:
To examine into and organise the sources of supply.
It is essential that the Minister of Supply should keep the question of essential raw materials constantly under review. I should have liked to have seen the Minister with powers that could be extended throughout the Empire and not merely bound by the requirements of the War Office. We hear a great deal at the moment about Staff talks. I hope that the Minister will be represented at the Staff talks in order that he may discuss the question of the supply of certain essential raw materials to our potential enemies. It certainly is the most remarkable anomaly that at the present moment we should be busily engaged in supplying


certain raw materials, which are not obtainable elsewhere, to potential enemies. Certain materials which are being supplied to them may result in their being able to manufacture armaments which may be used against us. It is on account of such points as these, and others which have been raised by my hon. Friends that the Committee will do well to accept the Amendment, although I fear that the Minister may find himself under the necessity of rejecting it, much as he might perhaps wish to accept it.

6.8 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: I think that in the attitude which is adopted by the Government towards this Amendment the Committee will have a very important indication as to what the Government really want to do and mean to do under this Bill. The Amendment as it is before us proposes in some respects to enlarge the powers which are to be given to the Government, but it also makes certain of the powers which are at present given under the Bill mandatory instead of permissive. Although there are some respects in which I should like to see the powers under this Bill enlarged, I do not propose, in the few minutes that I wish to occupy the time of the Committee to-day, to talk about them at this moment, but to emphasise the very great importance of that part of the Amendment which places a definite duty upon the Minister, and which turns the permissive powers into mandatory provisions.
The essential feature of the Bill as it is now presented to us, in conjunction with the declarations of policy we have had, is, as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Harold Macmillan) said, that it is an enabling Bill. Nothing in the Bill tells us what is going to happen. We have to look at statements of Government policy as to the extent to which and the way in which they will use the wide powers in this Bill, to know what is going to happen. The statements of policy that we have had have been very discouraging to those of us who want to see not just a Ministry of Supply Act, but a Ministry of Supply; not merely a Ministry of Army Supply, that is an Army contracts department with another Minister, with the addition of certain duties with regard to the purchase of raw material, but a real Ministry of Supply. We have very little indication that the Government mean to set up under the

powers of this Bill a real Ministry of Supply. We are told that the immediate intention is to purchase Army supplies and to buy certain raw materials, and then in effect to wait until the Departments ask for more. The Bill as it stands is not merely permissive in the sense that Parliament gives powers to the Government which they may or may not exercise. It is permissive in the further and more disastrous sense that the Government, as the Minister by his interjection showed us, did not intend to transfer the functions of the contracts departments of the other fighting services unless these departments themselves asked the Minister of Supply to do so.
I would like to put this question to the Minister. Does he really think that if the situation develops in such a way that the more extensive form of Ministry is required in the national interest, that that step will be reached soon enough if he waits until the contracts departments of the defence services come along and ask to be relieved of their powers or to be transferred to another authority? With his knowledge of the way in which Government Departments work and are related to each other, and of the history of what happened in the last War, does he really think that the Ministry will be enlarged quickly enough if he waits until that happens? He is certainly not contemplating that this will be done at once. For example, take the financial provision. At present it is suggested that the salaries, the whole financial provision for staff, including the Minister's, will be about £30,000. Of that sum the three appointments of which we have been told—the Minister himself, the Parliamentary Secretary, and Permanent Secretary—will absorb £9,500, practically a third of the total provision. Here, indeed, are generals without an Army; not only without an Army but without even officers? Why is that possible?

Mr. Burgin: The hon. Member could not have heard the explanation which I gave. This is the mere nucleus of the headquarters staff and does not include any salary paid to any officers taken over from any other Departments.

Sir A. Salter: I quite understand that, but why is it that headquarters staff can be so small as this? I suggest that it is because you are only adding your headquarters staff, not to a Ministry of Supply


but to an Army contracts department. If the new Ministry were taking over the wider task of reorganising and adopting industrial resources, a task new to the fighting services and requiring a different personnel from anything that you find in their contracts departments, you would certainly want a much bigger addition than is contemplated by this figure. I agree, however, that the figure is quite reasonable in relation to the present Government policy and for the limited task the Government contemplate, namely, that of handling the increased supplies for the War Office. This is enough, added to the existing staff of the War Office. That is the explanation of the figure. But does the Minister or the Committee for a moment think, if you are going to have a Minister of Supply doing the kind of thing recommended for the last three years by those who have been advocating an extended Ministry of Supply, a figure of anything like that would suffice? Clearly not.
I mentioned that only to indicate once more the immense importance, having regard to the attitude disclosed in the Government declaration, of the Committee, and ultimately Parliament, at least placing a duty upon the Government to do the kind of things that are mentioned in this Amendment, and not leaving the whole Bill as permissive as it is at present. There is at present no mandatory indication of what Parliament requires to be done. I do not wish to take up time in repeating the kind of duties which have been described many times in previous Debates, but I would emphasise the extreme importance of the Government indicating, not necessarily their willingess to accept the terms of this Amendment, but their willingness to accept a definite responsibility to to do more than they have yet announced. I would ask them to give the Committee an assurance that they will use the powers with which they are providing themselves in this Bill in such a way as to set up a real Ministry of Supply and to do it quickly by the decision of the Government without waiting for the consent of the different contracts departments.

6.16 p.m

Mr. Simmonds: This is a most amazing Measure. First, we have from the Government Benches proposals for the

coercion of their supposed friends, the employers. Now we have an Amendment from the Opposition Benches for the coercion of their supposed friends, the workers. When one reads the Amendment what can be the substance of it as far as the workers are concerned? It is to be the duty of the Minister to organise the labour available. I do not know what hon. Members opposite read into those words, but as one of the 12 Members for the largest industrial city of the country, Birmingham, I say, without any fear of contradiction, that the million people in industrial Birmingham would be wholly against any such conception of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Supply so far as they are concerned. What is it possible to do, if one reads into this Amendment? Is it not the beginning of the complete Nazi organisation of labour? [Laughter.] It is all very well to laugh at these things, but let us look at what may be the interpretation of words put into a Measure such as this, in the hands of people in the future, of whom we know nothing.

Mr. E. Smith: If the hon. Member had been in the Committee during the whole course of the Debate he would not put upon the Amendment the interpretation that he is doing.

Mr. Simmonds: One of the difficulties of this Debate is that the Amendment is proposed in a certain vein and the Committee tends to follow that vein and I am trying to look at it objectively as part of a Measure which may be read by an executive Government in times to come, and may have to be judged by the court, and it seems to me that a Minister who claimed under this Amendment to organise British labour on the Nazi basis, would have all that he desired. From my point of view and what I know are the views of my constituents in Birmingham, I should certainly not be acting in accordance with their views or wishes if I supported such an Amendment.
Does it not mean that the Minister would have power from the time of apprenticeship to set up training camps, to which certain categories of boyhood would be compulsorily sent? Does it not mean that the Minister would have power to send those boys, on leaving the training camps, to certain work? Does it not mean that the Minister could do exactly what is happening in Germany to-day—


take men away from their homes and send them to the other end of the country? He could do that under the power given by an Amendment of this sort. Therefore, I feel certain that my right hon. Friend will refuse to accept the Amendment, and I should like it to be known from the back benches on this side that as we understand the wishes of the workers they would not stand for an Amendment of this kind.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Hicks: I am anxious not to repeat any arguments that have been used. I am satisfied that the Minister has taken notice of the arguments and that in his reply he will give us his point of view. We are very anxious about having an efficient Ministry of Supply. We believe that such a Ministry is absolutely essential, and the approach that we have made to it is indicated in the Amendment. We believe that the Amendment would assist the Minister to greater powers than are proposed in the Bill. I was somewhat amazed at the imaginative flight of the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) into the conditions under which workpeople would be employed if the Amendment were carried. So far as Government Departments are concerned in this country, I think I can say with confidence that there are no British workpeople who refuse employment for a Government Department. They are very good employers generally, and many operatives would be very glad to get employment in a Government Department. They are not anxious to leave such employment, and when they are under notice of discharge they usually write to their Member of Parliament asking him to intervene on their behalf to see whether the notice could be overlooked and they could be retained. Therefore, the apprehensions of the hon. Member are a little too vivid and are not in relation to the facts.
As regards men being transferred from one part of the country to another, my own industry is as mobile an industry as any. Recently, some of our men employed in Perth signed on at the Employment Exchange and had to be sent to Margate because Margate was applying for bricklayers. The men had to go from Perth to Margate in order to get a job, and the rate of wages was substantially lower in Margate than the rate of wages prevailing in Perth. I had a similar

circumstance on the North-East coast and I telegraphed to my men not to accept, as I thought we could make such an intelligent appeal to the Ministry of Labour as to persuade them not to disallow benefit in such circumstances. Interim benefit was granted and eventually we got the full benefit allowed. Therefore, I do not think that the question of transfer from one part of the country to another is entirely new to workpeople at the present time.

Mr. Simmonds: I do not want to interfere with the hon. Member's speech, but he is speaking of what now exists. I was not referring to that, but to what might exist in the future, as to the responsibility of the Ministry of Supply under the words of the Amendment:
It shall be the duty of the Minister to organise labour.
I think the hon. Member would not deny that such things as I have mentioned might be conceived by a Minister to be his duty if this type of Amendment were passed.

Mr. Hicks: I have respect for the hon. Member's point of view, but I think in the general application if the Minister had to consider the organisation of labour he would take a bigger view than the firm and would employ people locally, whereas the firm which happened to be short of labour would apply to any part of the country in order to get the labour transferred to its works. I think we can deal with the circumstances at the time when they arrive, and I would ask the hon. Member not to be too worried about them. In this Amendment we are offering to the Minister greater powers. We know that he is not afraid of authority and we feel that he would welcome this opportunity of getting perhaps even greater powers than are indicated in the Bill. He may think that he has large enough powers. He interrupted the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and asked him for any instance where there were certain departmental jealousies or rivalries and they were competing against each other for the prime part of what were their particular needs.
I make no apology for introducing to the House of Commons the co-ordination which took place between the Departments and the building industry in regard to the


building programme for National Defence. That was purely voluntary on the part of the employers in the industry. They approached the co-ordinating Minister and asked him to agree to meet and discuss the building programme generally. The result has been, in my opinion, very successful. Each Department has been brought together and every one has been compelled to table its needs. Whatever the needs were they had to be put down and tabled, and then out of the common pool priorities were given if necessary, because of the special importance of any particular job or any particular employment.
I do not know what defence the Minister will give if he opposes our Amendment. Perhaps he will support it and give additional reasons for doing so. If he gives opposite reasons, I shall be interested in what he has to say. I raise no objection in the ordinary way to a Departmental chief being jealous of his Department. I should not like any chiefs of Departments with which I was associated if they were not proud of their Departments. Each would have full pride in his Department and all the time each would try to get the very best consideration for his Department. Chiefs of Departments would be less than human if they did not do so, but if pride and personal vanity interfere with general production, then I think we should not wait until difficulties arise, but should provide for consultation between all the Departments and give the Minister of Supply the necessary authority. At the end of Sub-section (1) it is provided:
that the powers of the Minister under this Sub-section shall not be exercised in relation to the supply to any other Government Department of any articles required by that Department for the purpose of the discharge of its functions, unless the powers of that Department in relation to the supply of those articles are for the time being transferred to or made exercisable by the Minister under the next following Section of this Act.
When does that arise? At what period will these powers be transferred from the Departments to the Minister of Supply? That is what we are concerned about. We want the Minister of Supply to be concerned not only with the question of producing things for the Navy, Army and Air Force, but with their relations with industry as well. It is important that the needs of all the Departments should

be considered and examined to see how far they can be met without injuring anyone else. It is in that sense that I feel that the Minister must have the powers proposed by the Amendment. There might be a question about food supplies and agricultural production, a matter of great importance, and I see no reason why the Minister of Supply should not have power to tackle problems of that character. I want to make this a real Ministry of Supply. We want to make the Bill as efficient as it can be. The old method was not equal to the occasion and therefore the Bill has been introduced. I think the Minister would be wise to have sufficient powers under the Bill to enable him to deal with all the matters relating to the Services and with industry as well.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Viant: The major point at issue is whether certain powers in the Bill may or may not be exercised by the Minister. It will be within his discretion as to whether he does or does not exercise the powers given in the Bill. We feel that circumstances are such that power should be taken now and should be used forthwith. May I point out that as far as the supply of labour is concerned, there is already a considerable amount of overlapping and there is not the organisation, which we are entitled to expect? The union with which I am connected had to provide men for important Government work in Chester as there were no men available in the vicinity. We paid the fares of men to be brought from Dublin, and when they appeared on the job they were not allowed to start, At the same time men were sent from Burnley to Newton Abbot in Devon. That ought not to be; there should be some one responsible. Anyone who reads the daily Press and peruses the advertisements will be alarmed at the variety of advertisements which appear. We know that men are being uprooted from one part of the country and sent to another for no justifiable reason. A little organisation in the Department responsible for the supply of labour would avert that kind of thing. On these grounds we think that the Minister should have power to see that labour is being used to the best possible advantage. That is not the case now. No one who had any experience in the last War can overlook the endless pin-pricks when men were sent from one part of the country to


another although employment was available on their own doorsteps. Our Amendment is perfectly justified on that ground.
I want to pass to another aspect of the problem. The Minister is going to be given powers to manufacture. I am persuaded, rightly or wrongly, that Government Departments to-day when making purchases, in spite of their costing procedure, are not getting the best possible deal. A Government Department like the Post Office, which has its own factories and engages in manufacture, is able to check costs very effectively. They are able to see at a glance whether the price offered is a fair price or whether it is unduly high. Government Departments like the Service Departments are not similarly equipped, and during the early stages of the last War the country was called upon in many cases to pay unduly high prices until the Government took upon itself —

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I think the hon. Member is getting away from the Amendment. If we are to have a general discussion on the Clause now it must be on the understanding that there will be no discussion on the Clause as a whole.

Mr. Viant: Up to the moment we have been having a general discussion on the Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: On the Amendment the hon. Member cannot enter upon a general discussion on the Clause, unless it is generally understood that there will not be a discussion on the Clause later.

Mr. Viant: This is a wide Amendment and in the main covers the whole of the Clause. I want to single out one or two of the functions on which the Minister should have power and, therefore I am suggesting that as a result of our experience in the early stages of the last War we might possibly deal with the question of manufacture.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think I could allow the hon. Member to do that unless there was a general agreement that we do not have a general discussion on the Clause. If that is generally understood I am prepared to accept it, but as apparently it is not agreeable to the Committee, the hon. Member must discuss the Amendment and not the Clause.

Mr. Viant: I must apologise to the Committee but the discussion has roamed over a very wide field and that is why I have mentioned these particular points. I think the powers suggested in the Amendment should be taken by the Minister at once and not delayed. I believe the Amendment is one which meets with general approval. I have pleasure in supporting it, and I hope to have an apportunity of speaking on the Clause itself.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. G. Nicholson: During the past two years I have had many moments of acute anxiety with regard to what appeared to me the reluctance of the present Government to prosecute rearmament with the vigour which I thought was necessary, but I must honestly say that in this particular case my sympathies are all with the Government in maintaining this Bill as a permissive Measure. I think the Committee should remember two things. First, that from the point of view of this side of the Committee there is nothing inherently meritorious in Government interference in industry. I cannot help feeling that the Mover of the Amendment was arguing from the hypothesis that Government direction of industry is in itself better than private enterprise. For better or for worse we do not think so on this side of the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that we cannot discuss the question of nationalisation on this Amendment.

Mr. Nicholson: Nothing was further from my thoughts. I was pointing out that the Mover of the Amendment cannot expect hon. Members on this side of the Committee to look at things from quite the same standpoint as he does. I feel that in the present emergency in which we are living there is a great danger of our embarking too far on authoritarian measures and that the Government will take too much control over every single side of life in the country. There is no doubt that we are being driven bit by bit to adopt the very measures of which we complain in our opponents. The second point I ask the Committee to consider is this. I do not think the difficulty of supply is automatically inherent in Defence Departments. I do not think the Admiralty have felt the need for a Ministry of Supply. Very considerable


naval expansion has been undertaken, but there has not been a great demand for a Ministry of Supply from the point of view of the Admiralty. Expansion on an astronomical basis has taken place in the Air Ministry, but I think even opponents of the Government must pay a tribute to the way that expansion has taken place, I do not say with a minimum of difficulty and of waste but I do say with little difficulty and little waste, and hardly any opportunity for those scandalous accusations which are always made when any Government Department goes in for supply on a large scale.
As I see it, the genesis of this Bill is to be sought in the War Office and in the War Office alone. The supply and contracts side of the War Office has from time immemorial suffered from the paralysing dead hand of the Treasury through the particular form of Treasury control which exists in the War Office. I believe that the Government are wise to make this Bill permissive. I think that the demand for an extension of this Bill to other Departments should be made by hon. Members in this House, and that it should not be handed to the Government on a silver plate before it is needed. In conclusion I want to remind the Committee that very wide powers are already given to the Government not in this Bill but in the White Paper, by Orders in Council. It says:
It is proposed in the first instance to transfer to the Minister all the powers of the War Office with regard to supplies for the military forces of the Crown,
with some slight exceptions. It goes on to say:
It is also proposed to transfer from the War Office all their functions with regard to research, design and inspection of munitions of war, and all experimental work in connection therewith, with the appropriate establishments.
And in a later paragraph it says:
It is further proposed that where stores and equipment required by Government Departments are of common user,
I take it that means the other Defence Services
power shall be taken to transfer the responsibility for the supply of such stores to the Minister by agreement with the Departments concerned.
That puts very wide powers into the hands of the Minister of Supply. I do not for one moment suppose that he will find

it possible to confine his activities to the supply of the War Department. Take any machinery or equipment, and I include in that skilled labour, or anything which is necessary for armaments. It is very difficult to say that anything is particularly the province of the War Office. Take machine tools for example. Surely the Minister would find it necessary to have a complete catalogue made of all the machine tools in this country and of all the machine tools which are for disposal in the markets of the world. That affects not only the War Office but other Departments as well, and I do not see how on earth the Minister will find it possible to confine his activities. Granted that the Bill is permissive and that certain powers will be taken by Order in Council, it seems to me obvious that the Minister will have his hands completely full, and that by accepting the Amendment the Committee will give him more powers than he wants, and more powers than he can effectively use. In addition, we shall run the grave danger of plunging this country even further along those dangerous paths which lead us to a greater degree of authoritarianism and State control.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I was very interested to hear the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) refer to the Nazification of labour which might result from this Bill. I want to say that any attempt by any Minister to Nazify the industries or workers of this country would meet with such resistance from the working-class movement as would completely prevent any such thing from happening, but I am not certain that such an attempt would meet with any opposition from any of the representatives of Birmingham. As a matter of fact, the whole of their conduct in the House has shown them to be more disposed to Nazi dictation than to anything else.
The Amendment proposes that the Minister of Supply should have some responsibility for organising the sources of supply and the labour available. I could give instances of experiences during the War, and even during recent months, to show that the sources of production were in such a condition of anarchy that firms carrying out work of the utmost importance were held up because they could not get the necessary material, whereas other firms carrying out work


that was not so important were able to get every kind of material they wanted. There can easily be a situation in which at a given moment material of all kinds is flowing into one industry to the neglect of other industries. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) said that the Admiralty have made no demand for a Ministry of Supply. Admittedly, the Admiralty are able to get plenty of material, but it may be that they are getting their material at the expense of houses for the people of this country. That is a possibility. The housing of the people is a most important part of defence. It may be that the Admiralty are getting material, but that some other Department concerned with defence is left without material. Is it not essential that some Minister should have the responsibility of examining and organising the sources of supply?

Mr. G. Nicholson: If another Department is aggrieved because it thinks that the supplies of certain materials are going to some other Department in preference to itself, it has a remedy, for it can ask for the powers under this Bill to be extended.

Mr. Gallacher: That is a haphazard way of dealing with the matter. Surely, the Minister should have the responsibility of getting knowledge from time to time of the sources of supply that are available and of considering how those supplies should be distributed. It might be that the Minister, placed in such a position, would at a given moment decide that supplies to the War Office, the Air Department or the Admiralty should be slowed down a little in order that supplies could be maintained for certain civilian purposes; or he might have to decide that supplies for civilian purposes should be slowed down in order to accelerate supplies to the defence departments. But to have a Minister of Supply who has not the responsibility of examining the sources of supply and directing the flow of it is to make a farce of the whole business. If we are to have a Minister who has any responsibility at all, and who is going to enter into his post in face of continually recurring crises, is there to be no attempt to organise labour? The Amendment does not mean that the Minister would have power to lay down conditions here and there and to transfer men from one area to another. There is

no suggestion of that in the Amendment. Under the Amendment, the Minister would have the duty of seeing that labour was organised in the most effective manner. How would he carry out that duty? He would do so, not by laying down conditions with regard to this or that factory, or by moving men from one place to another, but by getting in touch with the responsible organisations of the working class and ensuring that everything possible was done to get the best results from the labour which the working-class movement could give in critical times.
A great deal has been said in the Debate about the powers which the Ministry of Munitions had during the War. The Ministry of Munitions had very great powers, but they seemed to have very few duties and responsibilities. It is duties and responsibilities which we want the Minister of Supply to have. During the War, there was under the Ministry of Munitions a situation which in many cases was sufficient to cause a calamity, and we do not want that sort of thing to happen again. For instance, there was a situation in which the Ministry of Munitions had power to keep me working in a highly-skilled job at £2 18s. a week, whereas a friend of mine who had never been in an engineering factory got a job as a handyman, for which he was paid £5 a week. I did not object to his getting £5 a week, and indeed I was pleased that he did get it; but I was getting only £2 18s. a week, as were crowds of highly-skilled engineers. Girls working in the factories were receiving £4 10s. and £5 10s. a week. I did not object to that. I was one of the men responsible for the conditions under which dilutees came in and got big wages.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out to the hon. Member that too many reminiscences of the last War would be out of order on the Amendment now under discussion.

Mr. Gallacher: I want the Committee to understand the difference between giving the Minister of Supply power and giving him a duty of the character suggested in the Amendment. If the Minister of Supply has not the power to impose conditions such as the Ministry of Munitions had during the War, but has the duty of organising labour, how will labour be


organised? If the Minister wants skilled men for a particular job in a factory where there is very much work to be done, he will have the duty of seeing that highly-skilled workers are brought to that factory. This will be done not by compulsion, but as a result of negotiations with the trade unions and the payment of wages. Hon. Members opposite do not want the workers to be paid wages, and that is the reason there is so much talking round this question. We want this duty to be imposed on the Minister, so that when there is a question of labour being necessary in a particular area or factory, the trade unions will be able to go to the Minister and say, "It is necessary that highly-skilled men should be employed in this area or factory, but you are not going to get them unless the money is put up." It will be the Minister's business to see that the money is put up, and that the labour is effectively and properly organised. It will be not only a question of dilutees getting specially high wages, but of the skilled people also getting the wages to which they are entitled.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee and the trade unions of the country will never in any circumstances give the Minister of Supply, or any other Minister, power to impose either his will or the will of any Executive upon the working-class and trade union movement. The Amendment simply states that it will be the Minister's duty to organise labour. The only way he can do that will be through the representatives of the organisations of the working class, and the only way in which he can carry out that duty, and be sure of getting the men from one occupation to another, will be by seeing that proper wages are paid. That is the only power he will have, namely, the power to demand, as far as he can, in carrying out his duty, that conditions shall be given that are in accordance with the desires and demands of the trade union representatives with whom he is dealing. That is something of which more than anything else hon. Members opposite are afraid. They are afraid that the Minister may have imposed upon him a duty that will force him to interfere in the question of the conditions under which the workers are employed.
We do not want again to have operating the conditions that existed during the

War. We want the Minister of Supply to have some definite responsibility in regard to the sources and distribution of supply and some responsibility to the House in connection with the organisation and distribution of labour. He will have no power in this connection, for no power would be given in the Amendment, and no power is given in the Bill, either to the Minister of Supply or to his Department to organise and distribute labour. If there were again a situation such as we had during the War, of skilled men being tied down to impossible wages, then by the Amendment we should be able in the House to raise with the Minister the question of such conditions and demand that he use such power and influence as he had in order to assist the trade unions in getting the conditions to which the men were entitled. It is with such an idea in mind that this Amendment has been moved, not in order that the Minister should have powers of the character suggested by hon. Members opposite—powers of nazification which most Ministers would dearly like to have and which most of their supporters would gladly assist them in getting if they could —but in order to impose duties and responsibilities on the Minister and to ensure that the Ministry of Supply will be an effective weapon in any crisis.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: I think it may assist the Committee if I intervene at this stage to explain the Government's altitude to this Amendment, on which I think hon. Members will agree that we have had a wide and interesting discussion. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) rather suggested that the Committee could tell the Government's attitude to the Bill as a whole by their attitude to this Amendment. I am anxious to be as careful as I can in clearing away a good deal of misconception which exists in the minds of a good many hon. Members, judging by their speeches, as to the powers which the Bill, as drafted, gives us and as to whose initiative it is for those powers to be transferred from a Department. Let me try to make my meaning clear. Every hon. Member is anxious that the supply of every article necessary for the public service should be as adequate, as rapid, and as complete as circumstances require. If I interpret the mind of the Committee rightly, they would wish that, in the con-


ception of what is adequate, one should add a certain percentage for the unknown and the possibility of others than our selves requiring some part of these supplies. The navy has been expanded, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) said, supply has managed to keep pace with requirements. After all, the Naval programme is a somewhat simpler matter. The building of a capital ship means some years of work and the whole development of the programme can be laid down from the moment the decision is taken down to the moment of the vessel coming into commission, and everything can be made to flow into the main stream of supply centred round that ship. The Air Force has been expanded—

Sir A. Salter: Before the Minister passes from that I am sure he realises that when some of us have asked for the transfer of the powers of the Navy Contracts Department we were not thinking of the building of a warship, but there is, of course, an enormous mass of stores of a smaller character—very much like boots for soldiers. That is the kind of thing we had in mind.

Mr. Burgin: It was because the hon. Gentleman had that in mind, and because it is in the Bill already, that I wanted to approach it by stages. I understand the position about a ship. The Air Ministry has expanded out of all recognition, and a number of firms are manufacturing frames, aero-engines, and a great many instruments and much scientific gear. In both the Navy and the Air Force there is a vast amount of raw material—of armaments, ammunition, equipment and clothing—which comes under the heading of common stores. Those are already provided for in the White Paper. I do not think the Committee has appreciated the tremendous extent of the powers, beyond War Office requirements narrowly understood, that the White Paper actually does transfer to the new Minister from the moment this Bill receives the Royal Assent. But let me try and enter a little more into detail. In contradistinction to what has happened in the Navy, where there has been a gradual expansion, and to what has happened in the Air Ministry, where the expansion was determined some time ago, and where every energy has been employed to comply with the expansion

decision, in the War Office only within the last three months—from a date in March—has a decision for this expansion, multiplied by five or something equivalent, been taken.
There is, therefore, in the realm of supply a Navy tolerably well supplied by the existing method, an Air Ministry expanding rapidly, making good progress with its own methods and under its own command, with different establishments, with different mechanics, with different programmes—all proceeding very rapidly. Here is the War Office with this new decision to expand, and without the whole of the appropriate machinery to expand as rapidly as needs require. Obviously, the first task of a Ministry of Supply, whatever it may come to in one month, two months, three months, must be to make good the whole of that supply for that urgent need. And so this Bill is couched in the terms of setting up a new organism, providing what it is to consist of, and then transferring to it at once the job of providing everything that is known to be requisite and necessary for this vastly expanded force.
Hon. Members mercifully allotted me a Parliamentary Secretary, because I think everybody will agree that the task of expanding a Field Force by a multiple of five represents, in terms of every single article, from clothing right down to offensive and defensive weapons, a total for which the word "colossal" is not excessive. You can draft your Bill in various ways. You can say, "The Minister shall have power to do all the following things." That would give what hon. Members opposite call mandatory power. I asked the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, not in any captious spirit but for the clearing of my own mind, whether he meant these mandatory powers to be exercised in the face of opposition from another Defence Service; because, if you operate with agreement with each Defence Service then your Clause is adequate. It is only inadequate if you are going to assume a deep opposition and an inability on the part of the governing body, the Cabinet, to compose the difference. But would it be wise, in the interests of securing supply as rapidly and as sensibly and as reasonably as possible over the whole field, for this House, without a tremendous knowledge of detail which only a secret session or


something of the kind could give it, to determine against the will of the Secretary of State for Air that some new Department should take over his powers of Supply? Would that be wise with the First Lord of the Admiralty? It does not seem to me that that is a very sensible contribution to the task of Supply.
In the present Bill powers wide enough to do all these things are given. But there is a proviso that the new Minister, invested with these enormous powers, should not be able to go to another Department and say, "Against your will I am taking over, not the task of supplying what you ask for, but your functions of Supply; that is to say, I am taking over so much of the powers under certain Acts of Parliament as makes you at present the Supply authority." Because that is what the proviso in this Clause says. I cannot believe that that is a wise policy, and I think it is much more sensible to say that the Government by Order in Council, passed affirmatively by both Houses, shall have power to transfer to the new Minister this, that and the other power, as is required. And, as an earnest of what we are going to do, we tabled the White Paper indicating what there is to be put in the first Order in Council. That is where the difference has shown itself between those who are moving this Amendment and those who are opposing it.
Now I do not think the Committee can be aware of the origin of this Amendment, in other words, of the source from which those who put it down have taken it. It is from the Ministry of Munitions Order, 1915. And these words:
organise the sources of supply and the labour available for the supply of any articles for the public service
are lifted from that Order. They are words which are not necessary. The organisation of the sources of supply and the examination into the labour available are all in the Bill already. It is part and parcel of any sensible application of any powers by any sensible men. What the Committee is not perhaps aware of is that, even in the Ministry of Munitions Order, 1915, the powers were not mandatory, but were only transferable by consent. It is most curious. The Ministry of Munitions Order of 1915, made at a time when this country was at war, when the Defence of the Realm Regula-

tions were in force, when there had been transferred to the Executive Government immense powers which it would be inappropriate to transfer in a democratic country in time of peace, gave to the Ministry, as from a date to be agreed in each case between the Minister of Munitions and the Department or authority concerned, any rights and functions of the Secretary of State for War, of the Army Council, the Admiralty or any other government department or authority, the transfer of which appeared to be expedient to the Minister and to the department or authority concerned. In other words, even during the War the powers were not mandatory.

Mr. MacLaren: Mr. Lloyd George enforced them.

Mr. Burgin: Well, I am dealing with one thing at a time. I am dealing with an Amendment on the Paper, and I have taken it back to the source from which it was taken and I say that these words:
to examine into and organise the sources of supply and the labour available 
are otiose and unnecessary This idea that you should transfer, against the will of the Departments concerned, the supply functions of the Air Ministry, the Admiralty and the office of Civil Defence under the Lord Privy Seal is a mistake, and is not in the best interests of the production of the very supply this Committee wishes to ensure. It is much wiser to have the power to transfer all those things by Order in Council, and to leave it to the Contracts Department to come along and say to the Minister of Supply, "It is about time you looked into this, so please take it over."
What happens? The matter has to go to the Cabinet, because it is a matter for the Government's decision. But the initiative is not left entirely with the Contracts Department; the initiative could very well rest with the Minister who, from his general conspectus of the whole horizon, might say from his knowledge of raw material that there is a case made out for taking over supply in the wider sense. And the principle of having an Order in Council to do it has this very flexible, common-sense, day-to-day advantage, that you can take over that which requires to be taken over, and you can leave air frames, or aeroplanes, or air screws, or whatever special requirement you may wish to leave where it is. There


is something extremely flexible about the machinery which is recommended. This first Order in Council takes over from the War Office everything that the War Office does on an agency basis, which includes so much for the Dominions, for the Colonies overseas, and perhaps for allies; it takes over also everything of common user, which will include so many metals, so many raw materials, so many partly fabricated things, so many guns—for example the ordinary machine gun or the Bren gun will be common, whether it is used in an aeroplane, or a ship, or on land. A gun for fighting low-flying aeroplanes also will be common and the ammunition will be common. There are a great many of those things which have a common user which will be taken over under the first Order in Council.
And lastly certain stocks of essential raw materials will also be taken over under the first Order in Council. That Order in Council is a symptom and emblem of the very elastic way in which it is proposed to exercise the permissive powers given under this Clause. The Clause is widely enough drawn to cover everything that hon. Members want, it being left in the power of the new Minister to indicate to his colleagues in the Government the moment at which that transfer should take place, instead of this House taking upon itself the immense risk of attempting to order, against an unwilling Government Department, that its special functions should be taken from it. I hope I have covered the various points raised. If I have not, I will endeavour to do so by correspondence, because I attach great importance to the matters raised in these Debates before the Royal Assent is given to the Bill, and I will give the points raised consideration between now and Report.

Mr. E. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the reference I made to his Blackpool speech?

Mr. Burgin: The hon. Member was kind enough to say he would raise that matter, but he did not indicate what passage in that speech he referred to.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry. It was the reference which the right hon. Gentleman made to the proposal that might have to be made for dealing with labour.

Mr. Burgin: I was endeavouring to give an assurance to labour. At that moment I had just been made aware, by the conferences on the drafting of the Bill, of the very drastic powers there would be in it for dealing with industry. What I endeavoured to convey to industry, and what has evidently secured a wide circulation, was an assurance that drastic powers would never be put into operation unless the voluntary system broke down, and that I had every belief that persuasion and taking into confidence the leaders of industry and the workpeople would produce results without it being necessary for me to exercise powers of priority. I hold that belief very strongly. I intend to use powers of persuasion to the fullest extent and to appoint controllers of establishments against the will of the management only where there is direct obstruction and where some civil interest is seeking to claim the right to come first and to put the national interest second. I endeavoured in my own way, at a rather early stage of these discussions, to make clear the conception which I had of my powers—and that I had no intention of using them harshly, but that, on the other hand I intended to take industry into consultation. Of course, the speech to which the hon. Member has referred occupied three-quarters of an hour, and it is difficult for me now to summarise it, but I shall be glad to supply the hon. Member with notes of it if he wishes. I have endeavoured to indicate the purport of the message which I sought to give 'on that occasion. In this connection the Committee may be interested to know that under the Ministry of Munitions Act there was wide power for controlling establishments, but the number of occasions on which it was used could be counted on the fingers of one hand. It was very rarely indeed that the power had to be used, and in some cases an industry was controlled at its own request, because this helped it in its outdoor relations with other customers.
The Mover of the Amendment asked me a number of questions about the Supply Officers Committee and the Supply Board. Perhaps I had better deal with this matter on another occasion when I can do so at some length. Suffice it to say that the Supply Board is a committee of officials, that the Principal Supply


Officers' Committee is a superior committee, to which the Supply Board reports and that the Principal Supply Officers' Committee is itself a committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Minister who presides over the Principal Supply Officers' Committee is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the one who presides over the Committee of Imperial Defence is the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. It is intended not that that machinery should be scrapped, but that it should continue. Of course, the Ministry of Supply must be grafted on to all this organisation. Hon. Members will understand that the Supply Board and the Principal Supply Officers' Committee have to deal, among other things with raw materials and stocks for many purposes wider than the Defence services of the country, and that the Ministry of Supply is concerned primarily with Defence, meaning thereby active Defence and Civil Defence. I hope that the Committee is now prepared to take a decision on this important matter.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the Minister, when he gives us the fuller explanation of the existing machinery which he has promised, explain exactly how his Department is to fit in with the existing committees? Will he also give us fuller information on this point? I said earlier that I understood that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster presided over the Principal Supply Officers' Committee. In a speech in another place recently the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence stated that although the Chancellor of the Duchy of the Lancaster presided, he, the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence— still maintained the claim that he could be ultimately responsible for decisions over the head of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That has not been made clear.

Mr. Burgin: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I did say that the Principal Supply Officers Committee was itself a committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which does imply what was presumably referred to by Lord Chat-field.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I am glad to have had that point cleared up in that specific way.

Now we understand that there is to be a Minister of Supply dealing with Supply; there is the Principal Supply Officers' Committee presided over by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, also dealing with Supply; and at the top the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, also dealing with Supply. Then beneath all that there is the Supply Board under Sir Arthur Robinson. That machinery is very complicated and we ought to have an explanation, at some time, about how the functions of the Minister of Supply are to be interwoven, as it were, into the existing mechanism.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I do not propose to go any further into the complications of the existing machinery, but there are two points about which a certain amount of concern is felt both outside and inside the House of Commons. There are certain articles which are apt to be sent abroad in considerable quantities at the present time. There is, for instance, scrap-iron. A certain amount of anxiety is felt on the question of whether it would not be better to retain that in this country. That is a point with which I am sure the Minister would wish to deal, and we would like an assurance that he has definite powers to limit the export of that article if necessary.

Mr. Burgin: I have power to buy the whole of it.

Mr. Williams: I think that answer is very satisfactory and will go a long way to relieve anxiety. Perhaps it also covers a point which was raised earlier. Has the Minister power, in conjunction with the Colonial Office, to obtain all supplies of certain precious or raw materials which are essential in connection with the manufacture of arms?

Mr. Burgin: The Minister has power without the Colonial Office to buy the whole of them.

Mr. Williams: Throughout the Empire in conjunction with the Dominions as well?

Mr. Burgin: Mr. Burgin indicated assent.

Mr. Williams: Has he also within his power any means of limiting or stopping the non-essential production of any article?

Mr. Burgin: Mr. Burginindicated assent.

Mr. Williams: I am glad to have received those answers, because I think those are very interesting and important points and many of us who have worked in the country on behalf of the Government are very much reassured.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: The point of the Amendment in which I am interested is that which refers to "the labour available." You, Colonel Clifton Brown, said earlier that you did not want too many reminiscences of the last War, and I refer only to one. I remember that there was such a demand for man-power in the fighting forces, that no consideration was given to maintaining a balance of skilled labour to carry on essential services. In the industry with which I am concerned, owing to the wages prevailing over a period of years, the supply of young labour is rapidly drying up. The coal mining industry is complaining that it cannot get boys of certain ages to do the work. I am not sorry about that, because it has been very badly-paid labour, but now we have reached another stage at which it seems to me it will be necessary for a Minister of Supply to have power to maintain a supply of skilled labour in this and other industries. It also seems to me that at the present time the militarists in this country have got the bit in their teeth. In answer to a question which I put recently I was informed that 14,3 young men, key men in the coal mining

industry, may be taken away because they are between the ages of 20 and 21.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is now going rather wide of the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Taylor: I am dealing with that part of the Amendment which refers to "the sources of supply and the labour available." I do not think I need argue the point that coal mining is an essential industry, both for general purposes and for armament purposes, and if the available supply of labour is to be reduced, and if key men are to be withdrawn from the industry, it means that we shall once again find ourselves in the position of having to send these men back into industry where they are required for keeping up the output. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the necessity of supply being as adequate, as complete and as swift as possible. He also spoke of the possibility that we might have to supply others who were not in a position to supply themselves. How can he achieve these objects if the coal output fails? It is essential that a correct balance should be maintained in regard to this and other industries, and the Minister should have powers to enable him to maintain such a balance.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 119.

Division No. 179.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Dunglass, Lord


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Channon, H.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Fildes, Sir H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Fleming, E. L.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Gower, Sir R. V.


Beechman, N. A.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Blair, Sir R.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Gretton Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Gridley, Sir A. B


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Culverwell, C. T.
Grimston, R. V.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
De Chair, S. S.
Guest, Maj Hon. O. (C'mb'rw' II, N.W.)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Denman, Hon. R.D.
Hambro, A. V.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Denville, Alfred
Hannah, I.C.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Doland, G. F.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Bull, B. B.
Donner, P. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Burgin, Rt. Han. E. L.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Drews, C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Butcher, H. W.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hepworth, J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Duggan, H. J.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Gary, R. A.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)




Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Holmes, J. S.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Hopkinson, A.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Moreing, A. C.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Hunloke, H. P.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hunter, T.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hutchinson, G. C
Nall, Sir J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Joel, D. J. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Tasker, Sir R.I.


Keeling, E. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., s.)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Petherick, M.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Touche, G. C.


Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Pilkington, R.
Train, Sir J.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Levy, T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lewis, O.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Liddall, W. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Lipson, D. L.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Little, Sir E. Graham-
Ropner, Colonel L.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Little, J.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Loftus, P. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Rowlands, G.
Wells, Sir Sydney


McCorquodale, M. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Salmon, Sir I.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


McKie, J. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Schuster, Sir G. E.
Wise, A. R.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H D. R.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Markham, S. F.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
York, C.


Marsden, Commander A.
Simmonds, O. E.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.




NOES


Adams, D. (Consett)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Poole, C. C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Jagger, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bellenger, F. J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
John, W.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Benson, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Bevan, A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Silkin, L.


Bromfield, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kirby, B. V.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thorne, W.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaron, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H
Mander, G. le M.
Watkins, F. C.


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. MoL.


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Wilmot, J.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.


Groves, T, E.
Owen, Major G.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parker, J.



Question, "That: the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, after "service," to insert:
or which it is undesirable should fall into the hands of potential enemies.
This seems to me to be a very important power that ought to be incorporated in the Bill, and it has been raised at Question Time on a good many occasions in the last few months. The line taken by the Government has been that it is very undesirable to take any action which might have the appearance of being an economic sanction or embargo placed on exports to particular countries. I do not agree with that view, but I see it, and this is a method which I do not think would be open to any of those objections. Surely it is absurd for this country to permit the export of arms and munitions to potential enemies and to allow materials out of which they alone can be made to be sent there, and this is a method which I think is the least objectionable and the least offensive that could be put forward for dealing with the matter. The Minister would operate on the world's markets quietly and unobtrusively. He ought to have the power to buy, not only for production, but for storage also, and it does not seem to me that he has the necessary power under the Bill as it stands, because it says quite clearly in Clause 18:
 'Articles required for the public service' means—
(a) articles required by any Government Department for the purpose of the discharge of its functions;
(b)articles which, in the opinion of the Minister, would be essential for the needs of the community in the event of war."
That does not seem to me to go far enough, because it would not enable the Minister to buy up certain materials of vital importance which he learned were going otherwise to make munitions in some other country and which he desired to prevent going there. He could only purchase them, I submit, under the Bill as it stands, if they were actually required, in his opinion, for production in this country. That is why I think it important to have words in the Bill—not necessarily these words, because I am sure the Minister could think of some thing very much better—which would en large the scope of his powers, and—

Mr. Burgin: May I, in order to shorten the discussion, ask the hon. Member whether he is talking of a substance

different from one which would be required here, or whether it is only the quantity that differs? I think he will find that, on the proper construction of the Bill as drafted, no question of quantity or motive arises at all, and that if the substance that he has in mind is one which would be wanted by this country, the power to buy it is absolute.

Mr. Mander: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman the sort of substance that I have in mind. It is a fact, I believe, that Germany and Italy have recently accumulated abnormal stocks of the principal materials required for war purposes, a large proportion of the world production, being taken very largely from the British Empire. The sort of articles that I have in mind that are essential to Germany for war purposes, and which certainly must be imported, are nickel, copper, manganese, chromite, iron ore, steel, steel scrap, tungsten, aluminium, lead, sulphur, antimony, tin, mercury, and mica. That gives my right hon. Friend some idea of the kind of substances that I have in mind and what I want to know from him very definitely is this: If he learns one day that one of those articles is about to be sent to Germany, where it will undoubtedly be used for the manufacture of war materials to be used against us, and he desires to purchase it and sees no immediate prospect of its being used in production in this country for munitions, has he power to buy it and hold it indefinitely, in stock, as it were? That is really the point, whether he must buy for see able production or whether he can do it for stock—and material which he may possibly have to sell at a later stage on the world's markets.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: I asked the hon. Member to be good enough to give way, as he most courteously did, in order to ask the question whether the articles that he had in mind were articles which would be required by this country or were something wholly distinct and different. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that in regard to every one of the articles mentioned by him, and dozens of others of a like order, there is no limit whatever to the quantities that I buy nor is the motive for which my powers to buy are exercised necessary to be inserted in the Bill. I have absolute power to acquire any quantity of those materials, all of which,


it is recognised, are necessary for the manufacture of articles required for the public service in this country.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: The purchase of these articles might be necessary for protection against potential enemies who would acquire them, and probably use them against us. Does the power of the Minister go a little further than enabling him to buy only just those which he requires for the public service here?

Mr. Burgin: I have pointed out that there is no limit on quantity, and that the motive for which they are bought is not expressed in the Bill.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I must confess that the ordinary interpretation of the words both in this Clause and in the definition Clause does not suggest that to my mind. The Minister is entitled to buy
any articles required for the public service.
When he has bought all that he can imagine will possibly be required for use in this country in time of war, this Clause, I understand him to say, gives him power to buy further quantities which are not likely to be required by this country. I find it rather difficult to read that interpretation into these words, and I should be glad to know whether he has discussed the matter with the Law Officers of the Crown and whether they are quite certain that his interpretation is right.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: In his last observation the right hon. Gentleman attributed to me a good deal more than I said.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Oh, no.

Mr. Burgin: Surely. I want to be quite frank and to tell the Committee what is in my mind. In a Bill which gives anybody the power to buy in order to hold, or to store or to sell, you do not state the motive for which you buy. We define the class of article as an article required for the public service. The definition Clause is deliberately made wide. We get away from all the old questions of munitions of war and definitions which caused some trouble during the last War. We have this new definition, "articles required for the public service," and that, of course, includes any raw material, component,

alloy or substance which goes to the making of the article required. I asked the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to give me some idea of what substances he had in mind, and all those he mentioned, some 20 in number, are substances which clearly enter into the manufacture of armaments and munitions of war and therefore enter into the manufacture of articles required for the public service. There is nothing in Clause 2 regarding the limitation of quantity, and there is nothing which prescribes motives. It refers to articles as "articles required for the public service." It is a matter for my judgment whether the quantity comes within my power or not. The advice I have given to the Committee is the advice I have received in consultation with the Parliamentary draftsman.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Let us take some article which is not likely to raise any issue at the moment—say, boots. Supposing the Government contemplate that 5,000,000 pairs of boots will be wanted. Does the Minister contend that, if he wanted to, he could buy 100,000,000 pairs of boots? I very much doubt it.

Mr. Burgin: I have the responsibility of answering before the Public Accounts Committee for the expenditure of money, and also I am answerable to the House of Commons. The whole point of the Amendment is whether the power to purchase exists in the Bill or whether it is necessary to add any words to give that power, and my answer is most emphatically that it is not necessary. Then I was asked whether I had consulted the Law Officers of the Crown. One never goes to the Law Officers until there has been disagreement. But in order to make sure that the advice I gave was not merely an expression of my own interpretation of the law—whatever training or experience one may have had—but was an opinion shared by others, I asked the Parliamentary draftsman responsible for the Clause whether this interpretation was correct and he said that it was.

7.50 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: There is one point on which I should like the Minister to give us some assurance. Supposing it is found to be in the public interest that the Minister should buy supplies of a certain article with a view to preventing them being bought by another country, possibly a potential


enemy. Would his purchase of those articles be covered by the words in this Clause:
to buy articles required for the public service.
Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the acquisition of articles in order to prevent them passing into the hands of another country can be described as acquiring them because they are required for the public service?

Mr. Burgin: If the articles in question come within the description of articles required for the public service there is no limit on my power to buy, but I hope I should not, in making the purchase, express the motive for which it was being made.

Mr. Dalton: The right hon. Gentleman admits that he has not consulted the Law Officers, saying that they are not consulted until disagreement has arisen. Disagreement has arisen in this Committee as to the meaning of these words. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that before the Report stage he will consult the Law Officers and on the Report stage give us their opinion?

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: Certainly. I shall be very happy to give that undertaking. Once disagreement has been made apparent I think it would be discourteous to take any other course. I will very gladly do that. But I do not want the Committee to get astray on this Amendment. There are tremendous questions of policy behind any proposal for putting into an Act of Parliament the object and motive in exercising any powers. In my answers I have been most careful to state what the powers are. I am not going to announce to the world at large why a particular parcel of chromium, for example, is bought. I can foresee enormous consequences in foreign relations if that is done. But I will gladly give the Committee an undertaking that between now and Report stage I will acquaint the Law Officers of the Crown of the subject-matter of this discussion and obtain their ruling upon the interpretation properly to be put upon this Clause, married to the definition Clause, and report the result of that to the House.

Mr. David Adams: I do not feel that the Amendment can be brushed aside so easily by the Minister. Its purport is to

give power to the Minister to make certain purchases of articles which might be used to the detriment of this country. He clearly may not have that power, because in the Memorandum it states:
Clauses 2 and 3 give general power for the supply of any articles required for the public service, but the Minister is only to exercise the power in regard to supply to any other Government department if that Department's supply powers in regard to the articles required have been transferred to the Minister.
Unless, therefore, the Amendment be carried if the powers of other Ministries have not been transferred to the Minister of Supply he will have no power to deal with the case set forth in the Amendment.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I appreciate the offer which the right hon. Gentleman has made to consult the Law Officers of the Crown, but, in spite of what he has said, I do not feel at all happy that everything that one would desire is covered by the Clause, and I would ask him to be good enough to bear in mind the possibility of introducing some such words as, "purchase for the purpose of holding in stock," that is purchases which would not be necessary for immediate manufacture or production. I think that would go a little further; because if he found that he had bought more than was required from the point of view of manufacture here and had to sell, that wording might help the situation. He has said that he has certain powers and that they go a long way. Will he be good enough to say on behalf of the Government that he does definitely intend, in circumstances such as we have been discussing, to use those powers for the purchase of materials?

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: I have made it as clear as I can that I do not propose to state from this Box the motive for which the Government propose to use these powers. I do beg of the Committee to remember that the world is in a. highly inflammatory state, and if I gave some undertaking which rather carried some suggestion that there was an iron ring drawn and that there were to be no supplies entering it from without, that might have the most disastrous consequences. What I have told the Committee is that I am thoroughly seized of the point raised and that I will look through these two Clauses


and will consult with the Law Officers. The power to store is in the actual terms of the Clause. I have power to store whatever I have power to buy.

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friends and I are most anxious to get this perfectly clear. What they, and I gather also the hon. Member below the Gangway, are concerned about is whether or not this does give a power without limit of quantity, and that is not stated. The words "without limit of quantity" do not occur, and what I am concerned about— and I am using language which I think is prudent—is to be assured that there is no limitation on the quantity which could be acquired such as might be held to relate it strictly to our domestic requirements. Can we be assured that the power to buy and store without limit is inherent in the Clause?

Mr. Burgin: The words "no limit" are not in the Clause, but there is nothing in the Clause which suggests a limit of quantity, and that is what I had in mind in the statement I made. I follow the point and I will have it looked into, but I think the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will appreciate that the power to store independently of manufacture or user or sale is definitely in the Clause. We are on another issue, and that is the question of motive. I will have both the points which have been raised inquired into and report the results to the House. I beg the Committee to feel assured that the points raised in this Amendment have been dealt with. I have some responsibility for the working of the powers in this Clause and I have stated my interpretation of the Clause and I have told the Committee that it has been confirmed. I want these powers to be without limit and without motive expressed.

Mr. Mander: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, with a proviso that something may be put down on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.59 p.m.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to leave out paragraph (b)
This Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Hastings

(Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) and myself has been put down primarily in order to get some explanation of why it has been inserted. The paragraph gives power:
to buy or otherwise acquire any articles for the purpose of exchanging them for articles required for the public service.
The same point seems to be covered by paragraph (a). If I am wrong in so interpreting the wording, the Minister will no doubt give me an explanation and put me right, but at the moment the only interpretation that I can put upon paragraph (b) is that it is of the nature of a barter power only, and I should like the Minister to explain why it is necessary.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: I understand that my hon. Friend has asked the question for the purpose of ascertaining why this provision is included. As Members in many parts of the Committee may be in some doubt as to why express power to exchange in this way is taken, although exchange figures in the paragraph immediately before this, I might give an explanation. On4th May the Prime Minister announced certain transactions with the United States of a barter character, a purchase of certain articles for the purpose, once they have been purchased, not of using them, not of storing them, not of making them into manufactured goods but of handing them over to another Government for the purpose of receiving some other commodity in exchange. This paragraph is expressly put in to validate those transactions. The negotiations are proceeding, and it is not possible to give the Committee more information than the Prime Minister himself gave the House, but it is necessary to take these powers. No Government Department at present has power to engage in transactions of this kind. I have taken the powers in a general form in case similar opportunities of bartering transactions might arise in future.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, at the end, to insert:
Provided further that the powers of the Minister under this Sub-section shall not without an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament be exercised in relation to articles required for the public service, as defined in paragraph (b) of Section eighteen


of this Act nor as defined in paragraph (c) of Section eighteen in so far as paragraph (c) relates to paragraph (b).
The purpose of this Amendment is a little more exploratory than the last. We are dealing in this Clause with the permanent powers of the Minister, which include among other things the manufacture of articles required for the public service. When we come to the definition of "articles required for the public service"in Clause 18 we find that they come under three categories:

"(a) articles required by any Government Department for the purpose of the discharge of its functions;
(b) articles which, in the opinion of the Minister, would be essential for the needs of the community in the event of war; and
(c) anything which in the opinion of the Minister is or is likely to be necessary for or in connection with the production of any such article as aforesaid."
That is to say, (c) may be partly needed in helping out (a) and partly in helping out (b). Our purpose is to limit the power of the Minister to manufacture articles coming under category (b) except with the express permission of Parliament. As the Bill stands, my right hon. Friend has the permanent power to manufacture practically any article on earth. We are quite willing that the Government should buy experience in the manufacturing field, but we should like them to buy a little at a time. I particularly call attention to the wording in paragraph (b),"in the opinion of the Minister," and I would ask the Minister to let us know on whose advice he will be acting when he proposes to enter the manufacturing field. For instance, will his advisers be chosen from persons who have had experience in manufacturing and who have experienced some of the pains of enterprise? We all realise that Socialism is coming, but we should like to approach it in a spirit of gradualness. Hon. Members opposite consider the Tory party a little slow in the uptake. I am asking my right hon. Friend to give us time to accommodate ourselves to the new form of government which the Tory party will undoubtedly be called upon to administer.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I oppose the Amendment for various reasons, first of all because this week-end a manifesto has been published by the Federation of British' Industries dealing with this question, and it states:

Apprehension about the powers which it is proposed to confer on the Ministry of Supply is expressed in a statement issued by the Federation of British Industries. Clause 2 seems to the federation to extend powers of manufacture far beyond those now held by Government Departments and to make State trading, as well as State manufacture, possible in a very wide field. The federation believes that these powers are capable of being used to the serious detriment of private enterprise and urges the Government to make the provisions temporary and to ensure that they are subject to safeguards, such as a requirement that any extension of manufacturing powers should receive the approval of both Houses.
Although hon. Members opposite may not be directly associated with the Federation of British Industries, I saw several sat there waiting for this Amendment to come up who, I know, are directly associated with the federation. I am opposed to the Amendment on principle and I am opposed to it for several other reasons. First of all, it was the Federation of British Industries which first suggested the introduction of the means test. It was the Federation of British Industries which suggested a reduction in unemployment benefit. It is the Federation of British Industries which is making constant attacks upon one of the most loyal members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Therefore, we consider that, in the serious situation in which we find ourselves, these proposals which the Government are making are necessary, and all students of modern problems must come to the conclusion that they are necessary. We can produce evidence from mast distinguished civil servants, for example, Mr. E. M. Lloyd, formerly the War Office raw materials section officer and assistant secretary during the war to the Ministry of Food. He wrote a book, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, entitled "Experiments in State Control." In it he wrote:
A considerable extension of co-operative and collective enterprise seems to me to be probable and desirable in time of peace. I believe there is something to be learned from the experiments in State control during the War.
These men are distinguished civil servants who held some of the most important positions during the last War and, apart from their prejudices, they are putting forward their ideas, based upon their experience during that period. We ought to be prepared to benefit by our past experience. It is evident that the Federa-


tion of British Industries is not prepared to benefit by any experience at all except from the point of view of their own narrow interests. I have here a letter written by Lord Rhondda on 21st May, 1918. He says:
I should hesitate to commit myself to State purchase without first obtaining the sanction of the Cabinet. I cannot help thinking, however, that the distribution of milk, like the distribution of many other articles of consumption, lends itself to communal or State handling.
That conclusion was based upon his experience as Minister of Food and, if it was correct then, it is correct now. Therefore, we hope the Minister is not going to give way to this proposal. Here is another important factor. We on this side are concerned about the taxes that are being paid by our people. We want them to obtain the very best value for every penny spent, and therefore we are supporting these proposals.
Here are one or two concrete illustrations of the effect of this, and it is because of this that the Federation of British Industries want to cut out this part of the Bill. The price of production of copper is £25 per ton. In 1935 it was £27; in 1936, £36; in 1937, £70 and in 1939, £42. The cost of production of tin is between £90 and £150, but the cost on the market at present is £227. It is because of the steps that will be taken to deal with the materials that are required at the source, and so be able to restrict prices, that the Federation of British Industries makes a proposal of this character in order to prevent people getting the best value they can by the method suggested in the Bill. In the last War supplies of metal went up considerably. A ring was formed amongst the suppliers of cotton waste, and the price was forced up from £42 to £70 a ton. Sir Hardman Lever, who gave evidence before a Royal Commission, and before a Governmental Departmental Inquiry, stated that one firm made a profit of £2 a ton, which was equivalent to 300per cent., on a transaction that it carried through. I would ask hon. Members who are associated with the Amendment whether they have forgotten the Lord Vestey affair. Have they forgotten the Light Castings Association affair? If they have, all they need to do is to turn to page 38 of the Royal Commission's

report on the Private Manufacture of Armaments ,where it is stated:
We think a rigoous system of price control over armament supplies is very necessary.
Then we have evidence from Canada. An official of the Canadian Government Department of Trade said, in his report dated 31st December, 1924, page 28:
For reasons of their own the combines have decided that the Britisher shall pay more.
And then, on page 24, he wrote:
The suggestion that British steamship lines controlled by peers, baronets and Knights of the British Empire carry freight from foreign ports to any part of the world at a low rate and are witling to carry identical freights from British ports, would be absurd, unless official evidence that cannot be contradicted would be available to prove the absolute truth of the suggestion.
Therefore, we say that the Amendment ought not to be supported by any hon. Member of this Committee, that the time has arrived when the House of Commons cannot afford to take notice of any narrow organised vested interest of this character, and that we should put before such interests the interests of the people as a whole. I hope that the Committee will turn down this Amendment by a large majority.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: I thought it might help the Committee if I intervened at this stage, although I have no wish, of course, to stop discussion. As I understand the Amendment, it asks that before the powers in Clause 2 are exercised there shall be an affirmative Resolution of both Houses.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: In respect pf paragraph (b).

Mr. Burgin: Of course, in respect of paragraph (b).

Mr. E. Smith: While speculators are at work.

Mr. Burgin: I wanted to tell the Committee that the powers are put into the Bill with the intention that they should be exercised at once, and that I do not think anything would be gained even if the Amendment were accepted, because of the fact that the passage of the Bill and the Royal Assent are precisely the equivalent of an affirmative Resolution. If these powers had been intended to be kept in reserve there might have been


something to be said for the suggestion that the Government, when they decided to keep them no longer in reserve but to use them, should do so subject to such procedure, but inasmuch as it is intended to use the powers right away the position is different. I hope that my hon. Friends will, therefore, see the force and the desirability of keeping the Clause as it is. There is of course no intention on my part of superseding the normal processes of trade. I am not going to start up some enormous State manufacture of this, that or the other article without due consideration merely because there are these powers in the Bill, but I am equally not going to limit our power to make something in a Government factory if it is essential for our purpose.
The Essential Commodities Reserves Act, which set up the principle of acquiring reserves of certain essentials for war, was very limited. It was limited to food, forage, fertilisers, the raw materials for such commodities, petroleum and petroleum products. General reserves for industry have not hitherto been covered by actual legislative power. The Clause will naturally give power for that purpose. The plain fact of the matter is that, as these powers are put in with the intention that they shall be used, the giving of attention to them by the House and the Royal Assent are precisely the same as the passing of an Order-in-Council affirmatively by both Houses and I hope that my hon. Friends will realise that it is quite useless to seek to insert these words in the Bill.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: The Minister has advanced a very forcible and convincing argument against the Amendment. I do not think that he has entirely met the objections which exist to the giving of the powers proposed in this Clause, and that can legitimately be raised to the lack of Parliamentary control over the exercise of those powers. The Minister told us that even if an Order-in-Council had to be made, and if an affirmative Parliamentary Resolution were needed, the effect would not be different, because he intends to use these powers at once. If he is going to use them once and for all, he is going to continue using them. We all hope, of course, that he will, but he is likely to continue to use the powers contained for example in paragraph (c), relating to

the erection of buildings and the execution of works.
That is not something which is going to be done within a very short space of time after the Bill becomes an Act, and it seems to me that the powers contained in the Bill are exceedingly wide, particularly in paragraph (c).
Nobody will object to paragraphs (a) and (b), but in (c) the Minister is empowered
to do all such things (including the erection of buildings and the execution of works) as appear to the Minister necessary or expedient for the exercise of the foregoing powers.
The expression is not "all such things as may be necessary and expedient" but
all such things as appear to the Minister necessary or expedient.
That is to say, the Minister is to be the sole judge of what it may be necessary and expedient to do under the Clause, and that is giving him exceedingly wide and, to my mind, very dangerous power over which there ought to be some form of Parliamentary control.
I agree that it would not be possible to proceed in the way suggested in the Amendment because the Minister might desire to exercise the powers during the Parliamentary Recess, and it would be obviously impossible that he should have to wait two or three months; nevertheless there ought to be some form of Parliamentary control other than that provided by the ordinary machinery of Supply Days and Question Time. That control should take the form of an Order to be laid upon the Table of the House. That would not prevent the Order coming into force as soon as it was made, but it would give the House more control over these excessively wide powers.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am quite prepared to believe that the Minister is right and that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) is right, and that the Amendment is not entirely the right way to do what we set out to do. But it has never been explained to us why it is necessary that such very wide powers should be granted in perpetuity. So far as I can understand the definition in Clause 18 it is as the hon. Member has just said on the point which he was raising, entirely in the Minister's judgment what articles, manufactured or bought, shall be considered necessary. I have not heard


anybody explain a further matter, relating to what was said by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), that this Clause would enable us to get the Socialist commonwealth at once. The hon. Member said that that was the impression it gave him upon reading it first, but he never explained why upon the Second Reading he had a different impression, and no other hon. Member has since explained that point at all.
It seems to me that the Clause gives the Minister complete control in perpetuity. I do not know whether it is proper for me to indicate that there is another Amendment upon the Paper which proposes to limit the time of this operation and to ask whether that Amendment is to be called. I should like to quote again the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. He said this afternoon—I am sorry but I find I have lost my quotation but I think I can get it fairly accurate: He referred to what we have been saying off and on for the last six months, that we are not exactly in a time of peace now, and that it is getting less and less like peace. That is true enough, but still we are not getting to a condition that is so much less like war that we can put a term to it. The great difference between granting these powers in time and war and in time of peace is that in war time there is a term. Here there is no term; the powers may run for ever unless the Act is repealed. My main point is the permanence of these powers and the fact that, owing to the comprehensiveness of the definition, anything and everything, as far as I can see, may be brought in without any further Parliamentary action, because this one Parliamentary Act does it once and for all. It is rather like the argument of Henry VIII that, in so far as any Parliamentary action ever was necessary for settling the headship of the Church, it had been done once for all, and Parliament ought never again to venture to interfere in the relations between the Crown and the Church.
In a good many of the speeches to-day there has been an almost obvious looking back at the last War as in a sense a happy time—as, if I may use a slang expression, a sort of "high spot," and the Ministry of Munitions and other similar organisations seemed to be regarded as a part of that "high spot." But not all of

us take that view. It has been continually assumed this afternoon that all that the Ministry of Munitions did was good, and that nothing it did was bad. I am not very learned about the Ministry of Munitions, but that is not my general impression. I think there is a very strong case for the view that the Ministry of Munitions, for at least 18 months after it was set up, did not produce a shell. There seems to be a general assumption that, if we have something now with as wide powers as the Ministry of Munitions, many of us will have as much fun as was experienced then.

The Temporary Chairman (Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward): What the hon. Member is now saying would be more appropriate on the question of the Clause standing part of the Bill than on this Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg pardon if I was going too wide. I am not quite clear whether I am in order, but may I ask you whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), dealing with the limit of time, will be called.

The Temporary Chairman: No.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not wish to continue to take up the time of the Committee, having made the main point that I was trying to make clear. None of us, I imagine, wishes to clog administration under the Bill, but the present powers appear to be very wide, and, if we had a Minister less discreet and wise than the present Minister the powers might be used to such an extent as to make the Bill an enabling Bill for complete Socialisation. It seems to me that such wide powers ought not to be given without any Parliamentary check in the future, and without more explanation than we have had.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: Some hon. Members on this side of the Committee must have been rather amused at the way in which hon. Members opposite have been haunted by their own fears. The main point seems to me to be, not whether the Bill invades the field of private industry or whether it extends the field of public ownership and production, but whether it forges an instrument which, in the hands of a vigorous Minister, can be used with safety and effect in a moment of emergency, or in the brief period that


we still have left in which to prepare for such an emergency. Let us, therefore, not be influenced by fears or prejudices, but realise how urgent the situation is and how necessary these powers are.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: The Amendment asks that any exercise of these powers should require confirmation by Parliament, but the definition in Clause 18 indicates that the articles in respect of which they are to be exercised must be articles required for the public service which in the opinion of the Minister would be essential for the needs of the community in the event of war. That qualification clearly indicates that the powers are not being granted to the Minister in perpetuity, but for a specific period when, in the judgment presumably of Parliament, we should be faced with the necessity of preparing for a warlike situation. Certainly no section of the Committee is more anxious than the Opposition to preserve the rights of Parliament; that is one of our natural anxieties. We have continually protested against the placing of excessive powers in the hands of Ministers. We are confronted to-day, in the judgment, I think, of the whole House, with a new departure which, while it may appear to infringe our Parliamentary rights and authority, really extends them, because, by the will of the House, a Department has been set up with a Minister at its head in order that he and his colleagues may exercise their ingenuity in preparing for one of the greatest eventualities with which the country can be faced; and for that reason we ought not to tolerate for a moment any qualification of the Minister's powers, which are clearly necessary if he is to get on with the task which has been committed to him. Personally I feel that the powers of the Minister are far too restricted. They are restricted largely to making provision for the Army, and the other great Services are left at large until further action may be taken. For that reason we must preserve as much as we can the powers which the Minister may possess under the Measure as it stands.

8.33 p.m.

Sir Annesley Somerville: It appears to me that the Minister has not met the point that was put by my hon. Friend. So far as the question of immediate need is concerned, if the Minister's powers were to be used at once, that would be equiva-

lent to what my hon. Friends are asking; but that applies only to the present, and my hon. Friends are looking forward to the future. If the Minister could give an assurance that there would be some time limit to the powers conferred by the Clause, I think my hon. Friends would be satisfied.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I hope that the Minister will stand firm against the temptations which are being placed before him by Members on the other side of the Committee. Experience has shown that in a time of crisis we cannot rely upon private enterprise. That was the experience of the last War. Examples have been cited here to-day showing that in a time of emergency it is essential that the Government, as representing the whole country and the whole community, shall have power to do the things which private enterprise has failed to do. On this side we shall resist strongly any attempt to whittle down those powers. The; Bill gives power to the new Minister to procure
articles which, in the opinion of the Minister, would be essential for the needs of the community in the event of war.
Do hon. Members who support this Amendment object to the Minister getting power to procure articles which are essential to the needs of the community? The purpose of government is to look after the needs of the community; the Minister is taking powers in this Clause to do so, and hon. Members opposite want to limit those powers in a way that will defeat the whole purpose. In every emergency our experience has been that we could not trust private enterprise, which exists not to provide for the needs of the community but to provide for private interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) read a statement issued by the Federation of British Industries, which was in almost the same words as the Amendment. The fear behind the Amendment is that once the Government begin to introduce Socialism the people of this country will see how good it is, and will never go back. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) expressed his fears. He said that the time might come when a Tory Government would introduce so many Measures of this sort that they would constitute a very substantial instalment towards Socialism. We have said that the


only real hope for saving this country is eventually to adopt Socialism, and we hope that the Minister will not give way on this Amendment.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: The Labour party have often been accused in this House of bringing forward demonstration Motions of one kind and another. Here we see hon. Members opposite doing much the same thing, and bringing in an Amendment for which they try to find substance in a bogy that is at the back of their minds in connection with this Bill. The whole objection to the Bill on the part of most people is that it is a very poor attempt to do the thing which the public want. A much more substantial Ministry of Supply is wanted by most people. The Sub-sections to which the Amendment relates are devised to deal with a state of emergency, and possibly a state of war. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir A. Somerville) asked whether some time limit could be set to these powers. During the last few months we have been wondering what is going to happen. To set a time limit to that condition of affairs is an impossibility. This Bill is wanted in the public interest: the Amendment has been brought forward in the interests of private enterprise; and it is on that simple issue that we resist it,

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I do not wish to draw out a discussion on private enterprise and public enterprise, but I would remind the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that there must be something to be said for private enterprise, because it is a system which produced both himself and me. My right hon. Friend says that he wants to use these powers now. That makes a difference. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir A. Somerville) pointed out, the Minister has not met my point about the permanence of the powers. I am afraid that I cannot withdraw the Amendment unless I receive from the right hon. Gentleman some such assurance as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor has suggested.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: The powers that a Minister of Supply wants differ in peace and in war. He must at all times, as part of the permanent machinery of State, have

power to buy and sell and to make and to store. Those powers are given in Clause 2. Certain exceptional powers of ordering priorities, controlling establishments and compelling manufacturers to take orders ought to be limited. That is why Part I and Part II differ in length of time. The opinion of the Government is that the earlier part of the Bill is part of the permanent fabric of the Ministry, and that the power to buy and sell and make and store are among the powers that must be permanent.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.43 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the need for setting up national factories. That Amendment has not been called, but I was given to understand by the Chair that I should be able to deal with the matter now. I had another Amendment down dealing with the need for research, and I understand that you were good enough, Sir Lambert, to call that, but I was not able to move it, as I was away having a little food. These two issues are dealt with in the report of the Royal Commission of the Private Manufacture of and Tading in Arms.
The report says:
We recommend further that the Government's own manufacturing establishments"—
may I emphasise that? —
should be fully equipped for the production in some measure of naval, military and air armaments, that they should specialise in scientific research, that they should be responsible for the training of technical experts, take the initiative in the production of designs and improvement of machine tools and the formulation of mass production methods not only for their own manufacture and requirements, but for the use and instruction of the private industry of the country in time of emergency. By these means the Government establishments would, in cases of emergency, be ready with the specifications, gauges and number of machine tools necessary for rapid expansion. They would provide standards by which costs could be checked.
Our theoretical ideas could not have been put in better language than that of the Royal Commission that examined into the private manufacture of arms. They came to this conclusion as a result of the very fine and informative evidence that was placed before them by representative people speaking on behalf of a large number of national organisations in this coun-


try who had had great experience in the last War. In addition, three or four civil servants who were released from their duties as a result of being pensioned, were able to come before the Royal Commission and speak in the open without being afraid of the effects upon themselves. As a. result of that evidence, the Royal Commission came to the conclusion which I have just read out. Lord Addison, who was Minister of Munitions, wrote as follows:
During the War the State was compelled more and more to adopt methods of national control and direct tradings. In some cases they became necessary for the securing of essential supplies at all, and in other cases because it was not possible to secure either fair distribution or reasonable prices without national control and direct trading.
In the Trading Accounts, 1920–21, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in page 139℄and I wish the spokesmen of the Federation of British Industries had been here to listen to this℄said:
The Ministry of Food operated its own insurance fund, credited it with premiums at commercial rates, debiting all losses. This policy has resulted in a profit to the Department which would have accrued to the underwriters of £10,500,000.
The proposal of the Federation of British Industries was that the £10,500,000 should not have been saved for the taxpayer but should have gone into the pockets of underwriters and people of that character. Therefore, I am hoping that the Minister will use his powers to the maximum in dealing with this problem.
The next question I want to deal with is the need for taking power to direct and co-ordinate research. People familiar with industry irrespective of their political opinions, whether they are fundamentally opposed to us or not, especially those who are directly concerned in the heavy metal and engineering industries and in aircraft production, are in agreement with what we are proposing. We propose that the Minister should direct and co-ordinate research. I will give one or two concrete illustrations of the need for this. The products of Leyland Motors are admired throughout the world, and particularly by the Soviet Union who, although they have to pay more for the products of this firm than for similar products from elsewhere, prefer to pay the extra because the cost of maintenance is lesson the products from this firm than on the products from other parts of the world. This firm, by the use of German high-speed Widia Steel

increased the output of a certain product from 50 to 80in a week with fewer men employed. This shows the importance of research and of the co-ordination of research. It is well known that in America, and in Germany in particular, as a result of what we are suggesting should be adopted here, great improvements have been brought about in production. We in this country have not kept pace with developments, and if we are to hold our own in a serious emergency it is most important that research should be coordinated in order "hat we can keep pace with the advancement and development in other countries.
There is the quantity production of airscrew blades. If the Air Force were involved in a serious situation the wastage of planes would be tremendous, but the wastage of propellers would probably be greater than that of any other part of the aeroplane. Therefore it is important that we should direct, control and co-ordinate research in this country in order to obtain the maximum amount of production of airscrew blades. In industry generally many firms are in competition with one another. They have their own research departments, which they keep as secret as possible, as each firm desires to keep in advance of its competitors with regard to research. If they are to keep pace with modern developments they realise that expenditure on research is a good business proposition. This is another difficulty and contradiction arising out of the social system under which we are living. I am dealing solely with statements of fact. We can no longer afford to allow research to be carried out entirely on that basis owing to the fact that we may be faced with a serious international situation. It should be the duty of the Minister to co-ordinate research for the benefit of the needs of the nation.
Here is another illustration. In the North of England a tremendous amount of research is taking place, while in the South of England only a small amount of research is being carried out. It may be that the research in the South ought to be linked up with the research in the North, but this can be done only by the Minister taking the power to direct and co-ordinate research. Fortunately, we are supported in the plea that we are making by one of the most competent men who has ever


been engaged at the Air Ministry. Mr. McKinnon Wood gave evidence before the Royal Commission on the private manufacture of armaments, on 17th July, 1935, and the chairman, speaking to him, asked who he was. In order that I may use as much influence as possible with hon. and right hon. Members I propose to say who Mr. McKinnon Wood is, so that they will perhaps take notice of what he says. He said:
My name is Ronald McKinnon Wood. I was employed in the Royal Air Force establishment from 1914 to 1934, in the Air Ministry's Research Department at Farn-borough. I have seen the aircraft industry, chiefly on the side of the development of new aeroplanes for the Air Force. I was head of the Aero-Dynamics Research Department there from 1919.
He goes on to say:
One has, to my mind, a rather large number of competing drawing offices, and I have felt for a long time that the industry would be improved by a reduction of the number of units.
I do not altogether agree with that statement.
It seems to me that the essential thing for rapid expansion is a centralised control.
He was speaking about research.
Very often the ideas that originate in firms are complementary ideas and the best results are obtained by getting these as quickly as possible together.
That means that when research is taking place it very often produces complementary ideas, and he says, as a result of his knowledge, the best results would be obtained by getting this research work together as quickly as possible in order to obtain the results which we all desire. I understand that at the War Office at the present time there is a civilian Director of Research, who has under him six main advisory committees. I am not finding fault with that machinery, because I understand that it functions very well. At the Air Ministry there is an air Member for Development and Production who has under him a Director-General for Research and Development, with a Directorate of Scientific Research and a number of specialised directorates. At the Admiralty there is a civilian Director of Scientific Research and Experiment. The point that I want to bring out is that while that research work is necessary within the limits of the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry, and while I am not speaking

critically of it, the Minister ought to have power to co-ordinate all this research as far as possible, and to direct it. I am convinced that if we are to obtain the maximum of results from this research work which we are doing, it is most important that the Minister should have power to direct and co-ordinate it.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I do not propose to direct my attention to the merits of the Clause, which have been fully covered by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), but I wish to make again the protest that I have made before in regard to two features of the Clause. In Sub-section (2) His Majesty is empowered to do things by Order-in-Council with any necessary modifications or adaptations. In Sub-section (3) His Majesty is empowered to apply any of the provisions of the enactments under Part II of the Schedule, to the Minister or any property vested in or under his control, again with any necessary modifications or adaptations. That is a practice against which we have frequently protested, namely, giving to a Government Department power by Order-in-Council to modify an Act of Parliament. This is what we are accustomed to describeas the Henry VIII Clause. It is in a narrower scope compared with what we have seen in other Bills, but it ought not to pass without a few words of comment. When the Government propose that a Department shall have power to modify an Act of Parliament by order or regulation, they ought to carry out the precise regulation in regard to Ministers' powers, namely, in the exercise of a power of this kind to confine it to 12 months from the passing of the Act.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: We are entitled to ask the Minister to tell us the broad grounds on which it was not thought desirable by the Government to limit the period during which this Clause is to operate. The Clause has been drawn exceedingly widely and forms a part of a Bill admittedly brought in to deal with an emergency. It would, therefore, seem very pertinent to say that this Clause with all its width and scope is apparently intended to remain as a permanent feature of our law, and I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us why, as


other parts of the Bill are of a temporary character, it has not been thought desirable to give a time limit for this Clause. I can well understand that hon. Members opposite approve the absence of a time limit, because the Clause is to a very large extent giving a Minister of the Crown power to introduce Socialism according to his discretion. Naturally, hon. Members opposite approve of that, but those of us who dislike Socialism are equally entitled to disapprove. While we are willing to give these powers for a short period to meet a specific emergency, I think it is asking a great deal to ask us to give them, as we are apparently asked to do, power for an unlimited period of time. I should like to press the Minister for his reason why it has not been thought necessary or desirable to limit the operation of this part of the Bill for a definite period of time.

9.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I hope the Minister will be able to give the Committee some assurance, especially in regard to the part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) which related to the questions of invention and research. In that connection my hon. Friend might very well have quoted another passage from the evidence given by Mr. McKinnon Wood, in which he said:
The Armstrong-Siddeley engine sprang out of the work that was first done at Farn-borough. The same with the Bristol Aeroplane Company's engines; they developed not out of engines, but out of cylinders (which is the main part of the engines) that were developed at Farnborough. All along the line one has this co-operation and the basic work is done in the State institution; so that the new model is produced partly by the State and partly by private enterprise.
Opinion differed very violently about the report on The Private Manufacture of Armaments, but there is one passage in it, which has been referred to to-night, about which there can be no debate or disagreement, and that is that the report emphasises the necessity for specialising in scientific research. There is no money spent by the State that yields better results than that spent on scientific research. In regard to the question of invention, I have noticed that large-scale private enterprise has very largely crushed out the small inventor and the small research worker, because large-scale private enterprise has found out

that the best results are achieved by carrying on research on a very large scale, and carrying it on by means of team work instead of in watertight compartments. I think that fact is borne out by history, which shows how often inventors and research workers have made almost similar discoveries after months or years of work, which they have been carrying on in complete ignorance of what each other was doing. In regard to what has been said about the Defence Departments, I mentioned myself on the Second Reading Debate the great number of departments and committees which existed for invention and research. Each Defence Department contains its own research department, a great number of committees, and maintains a large staff of experts. It also maintains its own laboratories.
It is, of course, not merely a question of invention and research; it is also a question of design and test, and similarly they maintain their separate departments and personnel and equipment for carrying on design and test, as well as for invention and research. I have no doubt that there is a good deal of co-operation between the Service Departments in this matter; in fact I have some personal knowledge of the system, and I know that that is so. But the thing should be done on a large scale. We should envisage and carry out this co-operation on a far larger scale than is done at the present time. To my mind it is not only a question of centralising and coordinating invention and research work of the Service Departments but the research and invention which Service Departments carry on ought to be coordinated also with industrial research which is proceeding at the same time. It should be envisaged on that large scale, in fact even the Empire should be brought into it. No doubt invention and research are proceeding in the Dominions also and, therefore, the Empire should come into the consideration as well. I am sure that if the Minister will look at this matter in a big way there are undoubtedly big results to be achieved and great economies also of time, money and labour, and, above all, the most valuable results will be achieved for the country.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I have often heard it argued that we should permit research and inven-


tion to remain in the hands of private enterprise if we are to get the best results. I hope that the Minister is not going to take that point of view. I have known associates of mine, ordinary draughtsmen in the workshop, who have hit upon an idea and put it before the heads of the company, but the idea has not been taken up for the simple reason that it would mean pushing the present system of production out of the market and the owners of the firm could not see an immediate economic result which would recompense them. The result has been that the community in general has been the poorer. I know of no avenue in industry which needs closer attention than that of research and invention. I have in mind at the moment a very important idea which appeared to be quite elementary. My associate put it before the heads of the firm. They thought it was a good idea, but gave him a very trumpery recompense. The idea has remained in the pigeon-holes of the office of the firm. That kind of thing is taking place on every hand under private enterprise, and while the Minister may not be prepared to give the attention which ought to be given to the suggestion, I hope he will bear the matter in mind.
Under the Clause the Minister is to be endowed with powers of manufacture. I speak with some experience of a trading department of the Government, the Post Office, where they have their own factories and manufacture a considerable amount of their own plant. The result is that they are in a very advantageous position in so far that when competitors submit their price it can be gauged by the price at which the thing can be made in the Post Office factory. During the last War the community was at the great disadvantage in which it is to-day—it might have been worse—and the community ultimately was compelled to adopt a policy which meant playing the part of a policeman on private enterprise. The community had to set up national factories to ensure that undue exploitation should not take place, and these national factories set the pace at which profit could be expropriated by private employers. I hope the Minister is going to continue on a large scale the policy of national factories for the purpose of producing armaments and munitions in view of what happened during the last War.
I am going to give the Committee a few figures. Mr. Kell away, who was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, said on 24th June, 1919, that the national costings had reduced the price of rifles from £4 5s. to £3 8s.; the Vickers type of machine-gun, which was costing £112 before the national factories were established, was reduced to £80; the Lewis gun, which were costing £165, were reduced to £62, and that 18 lb. shells, which were costing 22s. 6d., were reduced to 12s. It has been estimated by the most reliable authorities that by setting up these national factories there was a saving effected for the nation of no less than £404,000,000. What we are concerned about here is this. You may have your costing processes, but that does not enable you to get down to the actual cost of production. You can safeguard the welfare of the community only when you are prepared to set up this system of national policeman in the shape of national factories, by which you can check the amount of profits which are made by private enterprise. I submit these points for the consideration of the Minister.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Doctrinal considerations apart, there has been evident in the discussion on this Clause very little disagreement in any part of the Committee. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), who opened the discussion, drew attention to the importance of research, and that line has been very persistently followed and re-echoed in all parts of the Committee. That view is shared by the Government. In these days scientific research is of great aid to production, and its continuance is vital if production is to continue efficiently. The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) referred to the necessity for co-ordinating research, and said that there is already a very great deal of co-ordination between the various Departments on this matter. It is the desire and the intention of the Government that this co-operation and co-ordination in research should be further carried on and encouraged in every possible way. When one is dealing with research one is dealing with a problem which has not only its mass production aspect, but its individual side. One can do a great deal by co-ordination, but the


inventor must always remain to some degree an individualist. It is very often the case that inventors are born and not made. Consequently, we have to take both aspects of the problem into consideration in order to arrive at a just balance.
The hon. Member for Stoke and the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) referred to national factories. These have been a feature of armaments production for a long time, and indeed, to some extent, are always bound to be so. Under this Clause there is ample power for the Minister, in any proper case, where it is in the public interest, to create a factory of that sort. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) again referred to the topic of Parliamentary control over subordinate legislation by Departments and drew attention in particular to what he seemed to think was the very disagreeable practice of enabling Departments to draft Orders-in-Council varying or modifying Statutes. It is necessary, when one is setting up a new Department of this sort, to provide in the Bill that, in applying these Statutes, one shall not be bound by every little word that is unimportant, and that necessary powers of adaptation shall be given. Then arises the other problem, on which the hon. Member's remarks are probably very apposite, as to the degree of Parliamentary control to be exercised over these Orders-in-Council when once they are drafted. That is a matter that will be before the Committee in detail when we come to Clause 6, and there we shall be able to refer to the matter again. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) asked me to explain why the powers in this part of the Bill are not limited in their duration. My right hon. Friend referred to that matter earlier in the discussion, and I should like briefly to recapitulate what he said. The powers which are contained in Part II of the Bill—and which are therefore temporary in character—are powers of a somewhat drastic nature to interfere, in the interests of the country, with the present conduct of the affairs of many businesses. They are to meet the present state of affairs, and therefore, they are limited in duration. But the powers contained in Clause 2, as my right hon. Friend said, form a permanent feature of any Ministry of this nature. We cannot have a Min-

istry of Supply without these powers, and therefore, it is necessary for them to continue as long as the Ministry continues. They are part of the permanent framework, and consequently, they are not limited in time.
The only thing I want to say on the discussion as a whole is to remind hon. Members that, in our legislation here, we are dealing with the question of what powers are necessary for the achievement of our object. Quite apart from the powers that are to be conferred, there is the question of the administration of those powers when they are conferred. A great deal of the discussion, which has been on familiar lines as between the rival merits and demerits of private enterprise and nationalisation, is more germane to the question of how the powers are to be administered than to the question of what powers it is necessary for Parliament to give. Those who laud the achievements of State enterprise will in future be able to urge His Majesty's Government to go in that direction in administering the powers given by this Clause, whereas those of my hon. Friends who hold contrary views will be able to watch how the administration of these powers is carried on and to make contributions from time to time either in criticism or approval. But it is essential that we should have the powers if anything is to be done. Those powers are given by Clause 2, and I hope the Committee will now agree to the Clause standing part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Transfer of functions of other Government Departments.)

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, to leave out from "functions," to "or," in line 28.
This Amendment and the following Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon), Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) and South-East Leeds (Major Milner), deal with very much the same point, and I suggest that it would be convenient if we could discuss them together, reserving the right to have two Divisions on them if necessary.

The Chairman: If the Committee is agreeable, I have no objection to that course. It would mean that the next


Amendment could not be debated separately, although there could be separate Divisions if necessary.

Mr. Ede: The difficulty which confronts hon. Members on this side of the Committee is whether we should be pleased with having the Bill at all, or disappointed at having so poor a Bill; and when we get to this Clause, our feeling of disappointment seriously outweighs our feeling of pleasure, because under the Clause there is a serious danger that the Ministry of Supply may be a mere
thing of shreds and patches.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would still be content to be the Wandering Minstrel and to go on proclaiming its virtues and his own in such parts of the country as he could obtain an audience to listen to him; but we desire that the Ministry shall be something more than the very limited conception that is embodied in this Clause. The effect of these two Amendments would be to ensure that the Ministry would be able to function over a wider sphere once it came into being. The first Amendment would take out the words:
or such classes of those articles as may be so specified.
We suggest that the transfer of the functions with regard to all these classes should take place at once. The Minister dealt with this point to some extent on the previous Clause, but he has left me quite unconvinced. Speaking as an old soldier, I do not believe the War Office is as inefficient as is made out by the case for the Government. The Minister says that they are going to be multiplied fivefold, and that therefore, he has to come in to look after them. I wonder how many times the Air Force has been expanded in the past three years. The right hon. Gentleman does not, of necessity, get these functions in regard to the Air Force. We do not claim in regard to the construction of ships that the Admiralty's functions should be transferred to him, but I wonder how many times the functions of the Navy have been increased during recent years; I should think not far short of the extent that he referred to in the case of the War Office. Therefore, it is very difficult to understand why he should be really the Supply Minister for the War Office and but little else at the beginning. I venture to say that unless the alterations which we pro-

pose are made now, there will be the usual jealousies between Departments— jealousies which are to be found equally in private enterprise and municipal enterprise when it is proposed to transfer powers, duties and functions from one department to another. We think that if the Government limit these functions to
such classes of those articles as may be so specified
in. the Order, they are making the transfer too slowly and putting the right hon. Gentleman in command of Supply as a whole at far too slow a pace. Then, coming to the second Amendment, to leave out the words:
or as may be agreed between the Department and the Minister,
we are inclined to think that that means postponing some of these transfers to the Greek Kalends. If the right hon. Gentleman is to wait till he gets agreement with some of these people we are seriously afraid that the transfer will never take place at all. We on this side of the House have asked for a Ministry of Supply because we believe that in the tremendous emergency that we are continually being assured by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench confronts the nation it is essential that the equipment of the Forces should be carried through with speed, and without conflict between the Departments, and that the supply of materials and labour should be allocated in the best possible way. The best results can only be achieved by placing all these functions in the hands of one Ministry, and we welcomed the announcement that the Ministry was to be created because we hoped that at last the Government had accepted that view. We now find, to our very considerable dismay and disappointment, that that is not the case, and that while the right hon. Gentleman will deal with supply for the War Office he will have to wait for, and possibly get only in very small instalments, the same functions of other Departments. That must inevitably lead to overlapping, to competition, to the wasteful use of materials and labour. Economy in the use of materials and labour is almost as important as getting on with the job of supply. After all, in the long run there is a limit even to the resources of this great nation, and the wasteful use of those resources in the early stage may very well prove a detriment to us if the struggle should prove to be prolonged.
Hon. Members opposite have asked why no limit is put on the powers given to the Minister in this Part of the Bill. I think the answer is fairly clear. The Government was created in a crisis it drifts from one crisis to another. As long as it exists it will have to go on finding new crises in order to justify its existence. If hon. Members opposite really want to put a limitation on this Part of the Bill they should get rid of this Government and put us in office, when, by a more sane conduct of the affairs of the nation, we would bring affairs back into a state where crises would be no more. Otherwise, it is quite clear that there will be nothing but crises in the world. In view of the fact that they seem to think that they have a fairly long tenure of office before them (though we believe they are going to be disillusioned when they put that to the test), we think it is very desirable that economy should be exercised in controlling the use of the material and labour available. We want to see concentrated in this Ministry the whole of the supply functions of the Government. The effect of these two Amendments, of which I am moving the first, would be to hasten that consummation.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I must confess that when I listened to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) expounding the merits of his Amendment, I failed entirely to understand how he thought the good purposes, which no doubt he cherishes in his heart, would be achieved by this alteration in the Bill. His object, he said, was to hasten events and to render the accomplishment of the objects of this Bill more expeditious, but the words which he is proposing to delete are inserted in the draft for that very purpose, and the Amendment could not but have the effect of making the working of the Bill more rigid, and consequently less adaptable to circumstances. The hon. Member's chief argument was that the words which he proposes to delete in some way limit the generality of the powers that are to be transferred.

Mr. Ede: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. My view is that you are going to do it, if I may say so, by retail methods, instead of by wholesale methods. The words which it is proposed to delete enable the thing to be done in very small instalments.

Mr. Morrison: The Clause as drafted enables either the wholesale or the retail method to be adopted, and in appropriate cases it is intended to adopt what the hon. Gentleman calls the wholesale method. But there are great advantages to the public service in being able to adopt a procedure more adequately adapted to the problem in hand. A common one, for example, would be the transfer from the War Office of most of its Supply functions to the new Ministry while leaving that Department still to deal with such questions as rations and supplies which are obtained locally and not in bulk, thus enabling the units of the Army to deal with people round about them. It is better that it should remain so. All that these words do is to give power for them to do that in a proper case. If there is some one item like that which it is better in the interests of efficiency to leave to the Department it can be done, but under this Amendment you could not make such an arangement; you would have to give the War Office the right to deal with all or none of the articles it requires. Therefore, I think the words in the Bill are more conducive to speed.
Let me deal with the second Amendment, as I understand it is the desire of the Committee that both should be considered together. Here, again, the Clause does not mean that only such things as may be agreed upon shall be transferred. The words are plain:
His Majesty may by Order in Council provide that the powers and duties of any Government Department specified in the Order, whether conferred or imposed by statute or otherwise, in relation to the supply of articles or as may be agreed between the Department and the Minister shall be transferred.
The reason, again, is in order to get a more flexible and adaptable machinery. It is necessary under the scheme laid down in the Clause to have an Order in; Council when you want to transfer a supply function. It may be that there is. some quite small item which some Department would prefer the Minister of Supply to take over or which it may be in the public interest that the Minister should take over for them. All that the words in question do is to enable such detailed items to be included in the Order by agreement. I hope I have made clear what our desire is and the words which we have put into this Clause really hasten;


the achievement of that object and provide a more adaptable and easier running machinery for doing so.

Mr. Ede: In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation on the first Amendment, would not the Clause be more in accordance with the explanation which he gave if instead of starting this phrase with the word "or" he used the word "except"? The object of these words, he says, is to enable, forage, for example, to be purchased locally. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is intended to take over these things wholesale but he suggests that there are one or two things like the local purchase of forage, for such horses as are left in the Army, which make it desirable to have these words. If that is the intention of the Government, surely the word "except" should be substituted for "or." Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that suggestion between now and the Report stage?

Mr. Morrison: That is a question of drafting, and, of course, it will be considered. It is clear that there is no difference of opinion between us as to object and I think myself, at first blush, there is no improvement to be achieved in the way suggested by the hon. Member. I mentioned the case of forage. Supposing it was desired to give the Minister special power to buy all the steel required for shipbuilding. That would be a case in which you would specify a certain class of supply function to be transferred to the Minister. I take it there is no difference between us as to intention.

Mr. Ede: I was only taking up the right hon. Gentleman's own explanation.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: We cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. He says that the intention of these words is to increase the power of the Minister and not to limit his functions. In that case I am very much surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to explain away the words "or as may be agreed between the Department and the Minister." I do not understand how he can interpret those words as increasing the range of the Minister's powers. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister designate has been acting for some time now, in effect, as Minister for

Supply, but I do not know whether he will mind my saying that he has some experience to go through yet. Some of the Defence Departments have probably made their contribution to the destruction of the reputation of Ministers for Co-ordination and when the Minister of Supply comes to discharge his functions, on the lines of agreement between himself and the Defence Departments, he may find himself very much limited. The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of telling us whether I am wrong or not, but reading this Clause and these words in particular, my hon. Friends and I, with the best intentions in the world, and with no desire to twist the words out of their proper meaning, cannot but regard them as limiting in their effect. If the exercise of the Minister's functions is to depend upon agreements between Departments, he will certainly be limited.
It may be that the Defence Departments have learned a good deal in relation to co-operation, but those of us who have been watching these matters for many years know the great difficulties that exist in getting Departments to co-operate with regard to contracts. We know the time which has been occupied in setting up pooling committees for contracts. We know the time that has been taken, stage by stage, in getting to the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence and we are not sanguine that the right hon. Gentleman will get the agreement which he wants with the Departments. If we cannot influence him to reconsider these words, it is our duty to warn him that he will probably come up against difficulty if he is dependent upon agreement with the Departments as other Ministers have found in the past. I believe that Ministers for Co-ordination have found themselves in such difficulties. When the right hon. Gentleman is taking powers, I think he is very much mistaken in submitting to these words. When I first saw them I imagined the kind of conversation which must have taken place inside the Government in regard to them. Probably it was said, "This is a bit risky, but we will see what those fellows on the other side think about it." I shall be very much surprised if these words do not involve the right hon. Gentleman in difficulties, and we certainly cannot accept the interpretation which has been put upon them by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

943 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: I always listen to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with great interest and I usually find him convincing, but in this matter he has failed to carry conviction to me. His chief argument appears to be that if these two sentences were omitted from the Clause, Orders in Council would have to be multiplied in order to deal with each separate transfer. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman tried to prove that the lesser covered the greater. I suggest that if these words are omitted, it will readily be seen that the greater covers the lesser. If we give the Minister power to take over Supply functions from any Department, in whole or in part, why should it be necessary to introduce these qualifications? It is a difference not so much between wholesale and retail, as between direct and indirect methods.
Unless the Minister is going to say that an Order in Council is not sufficient for this Clause without those words included, I am prepared to say that you might possibly have more than one Order in Council if the words are left in. Suppose the. Minister gets an Order in Council for the

part transfer of a. certain Department, and it is found necessary afterwards to give him a complete transfer. The Order in Council will lay it down that his powers are limited to the extent of the conditions set forth in the Order. Therefore, it will be necessary for him to get another Order in Council to enable him to take over a larger share of the Department, whereas without these words one Order in Council would govern each and every transaction of that kind. I do not know whether I have been able to impress the Minister in the slightest degree by what I have said, but I know him to be reasonable and receptive, and I suggest that the matter is worthy of his reconsideration.

Amendment negatived.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, to leave out from "specified," to "shall," in line 29.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 116.

Division No. 18.]
AYES.
[9.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. C. J.
De Chair, S. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hunloke, H. P.


Albery, Sir Irving
Donner, P. W.
Hunter, T.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Drewe, C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Dunean, J. A. L.
Joel, D. J. B.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Dunglass, Lord
Jonas, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Eastwood, J. F.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Keeling, E. H.


Beechman, N. A.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Boulton, W. W.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Erskine-Hill, A. D.
Kimball, L.


Boyce. H. Leslie
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Fildes, Sir H.
Lees-Jones, J.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Fleming, E. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lennox- Boyd, A. T. L.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Levy, T.


Bull, B. B.
Gledhill, G.
Lewis, O


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Goldie, N. B.
Lipson, D. L.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Little, J.


Butcher, H. W.
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Loftus, P. C.


Carver, Major W. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Cary, R. A.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Channon, H.
Hambro, A. V.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hammersley, S. S.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E, Grinstead)
Hannah, I. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Markham, S. F.


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hepworth, J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Moreing, A. G.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Holdsworth, H
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Holmes, J. S.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hask., N)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Culverwell, C. T.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Munro, P.




Nall, Sir J.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Touche, G. C.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Schuster, Sir C. E.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Selley, H. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Peake, O.
Shakespeare, G. H,
Wakefield, W. W.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Petherick, M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Simmonds, O. E.
Waterhouse, Captain C


Pilkington, R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Pansonby, Col. C. E.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Walls, Sir Sydney


Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Somarville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Read, A. C. (Exeter)
Spens. W. P.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Reid, J. s. C. (Hillhead)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Windsor-clive, Lieut.-Colonel G


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wise, A. R.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichten- (N'thw'h)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
York, C.


Ross Taylor, W. (Wood bridge)
Sutcliffe, H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Rowlands, G.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Tate, Mavis C.
Mr. Furness and Major Sir


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
James Edmondson.


Russell, Sir Alexander
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.





NOES


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, D. (Contain
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hicks, E. G.
Ridley, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Hopkin, D,
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Isaacs, G. A.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barr, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bartlett, C. V.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Batey, J.
John, W.
Sexton. T. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Bevan, A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Silverman, S. S.


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Bromfield, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kirkwood, D.
Sloan, A.


Burke, W. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. MoL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Wilmot, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.



Harris, Sir P. A.
Poole, C. C.

The Chairman: I propose to call the next two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and other hon. Members on the understanding that they are taken together—in page 4, line 14, to leave out from the beginning, to "to, "in line 15, and to insert "There shall be transferred"; and in line 17, to leave out from "1938," to the end of the Clause, and to add:
and His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for such consequential matters

as it appears to Him expedient to provide for by reason of this Sub-section, and may by any such Order modify any enactment relating to such matter.
Perhaps I ought to tell the Committee that I should not have selected the first of these Amendments if it had stood by itself, and I hope that will be a hint to the Committee that the principle involved in that Amendment has already been discussed on at least two other Amendments.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out from the beginning, to "to," in line 15, and to insert "There shall be transferred."
I am obliged to you for your Ruling, Sir Dennis, which eases my task considerably in moving the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and myself, and I will endeavour to remember what you have been good enough to say. If the two Amendments were carried the Clause would then read:
There shall be transferred to the Minister the powers and duties of the Board of Trade under the Essential Commodities Reserves Act, 1938, and His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for such consequential matters as it appears to Him expedient to provide for by reason of this Sub-section, and may by any such Order modify any enactment relating to such matter.
It is true that the principle of compulsory and complete transfer of the powers now in the possession of the Department has been discussed on two previous Amendments, one moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) but they were, I submit, related to the Defence Departments, and this Amendment is not so related. I thought the Minister, in replying earlier on the Debate, was a little half-hearted, and that the way in which he employed the terms of the Ministry of Munitions powers showed him to be half-hearted. In reply to the question he put to my hon. Friends as to what was to be done with a Department which was reluctant to concede its powers, I should say that its reluctance was evidence of the desirability of taking those powers from it, particularly in the case of Defence Departments.
I am now discussing the Board of Trade. The Minister said earlier that they were anxious that the supply of every necessity for the public service should be active. "Every necessity" would mean not only the necessities of the Defence Services, but those of the community in a very much wider sense. I therefore submit, in the terms of these two Amendments, that the Essential Commodities Act covers commodities which are as essential to the success of a campaign as are those which are covered by the Defence Departments.

I was a little disturbed to hear the Chancellor of the Duchy say that rationing in the Army was still to be a reserved authority and not within the authority of the Ministry of Supply. I should have thought that food in the Defence Services was as much a common-user commodity as most other things, that food in war was a common-user commodity to everybody, civilians, military, naval alike, and that therefore it was in every way desirable that the powers now exercised by the President of the Board of Trade tinder the Essential Commodities Act should be transferred to the Ministry of Supply and related to its general responsibilities. There is very considerable authority for the belief that the morale of the German Army in 1918 was not broken by its own defective food supplies but by the fact that it was being continually reminded of the defective food supplies of its civilian population behind the lines. Therefore, it is a matter of national importance that the Minister of Supply should be responsible not only for the supply of the normal defence weapons of the three Defence Departments but for the supply of all the common-user commodities, particularly those covered by the Essential Commodities Act.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill makes it clear that the Minister will only be able to exercise the powers in the Bill subject to the approval of the other Departments. It seems to me that that will lead to departmental confusion. The great mistake the Bill is likely to make is to pretend to create a Ministry of Supply and in the; end not to do so, to be half-hearted about it by introducing permissive powers which may never be exercised, or, if they are required, can be exercised only after inter-departmental discussions which may involve dispute and dislocation. The essence of the success of the Ministry is that it shall have in its possession the maximum amount of co-ordinating authority and able to exercise that authority not after conflict with other Departments but with the maximum speed. The short submission is that the powers now evercisable by the President of the Board of Trade under the Essential Commodities Act are so complementary even to the limited powers which the Ministry of Supply seeks in the Bill that they should be transferred to the Ministry of Supply and exercised by the Ministry of Supply.
As to the second Amendment, the terms of it are in harmony with the general provisions of the Bill, although I understand they have the honour to meet with the disapproval of the Liberal party below the Gangway. If the Amendment disposed of a few minutes ago had not been the subject of a Division, we should have had the spectacle of empty Liberal benches. This second Amendment is within the general provisions of the Bill and seeks to give the Minister, subject to the Parliamentary authority which is inherent in the general provisions of the Bill, the opportunity of moving with speed in moments of danger.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: It may assist the Committee if I give an explanation why this Clause is in the Bill and show how far I am in agreement with a good deal of what the hon. Member has said. He said he thought there were a great many commodities which were in common use and a great many which were as important for the civilian population as for the Defence Services. That is quite true. A great deal of the Essential Commodities Act is being transferred by the first Order-in-Council, as will be seen from the White Paper. What is not being transferred is food, because food is in the Food (Defence Plans) Department, a separate Department presided over by the Chancellor of the Duchy. The whole food Defence plan is far wider than the Defence Services, covering the whole civilian requirements. It is already a separate Department of State with a separate head. There is not the slightest advantage in further transferring that to the new Ministry of Supply. It is functioning very well. The whole question of food and food distribution is already the subject-matter of this special Department presided over by a Cabinet Minister. So you transfer part of the powers given by the Essential Commodities Act but not the whole. You transfer everything dealing with raw materials, but you do not transfer food, because that is subject to another Department, and you do not transfer petrol, because there are elaborate arangements for petroleum and petroleum products already controlled by the Treasury, with a proper co-ordinating committee of the Service Departments, so that all ordinary supplies and rebates from standard prices and so on are guaranteed. All matters

dealing with petrol, petroleum and lubricating oils are a highly specialised line of inquiry and it is natural that all that should be dealt with under the Oil Board, on which the Service Departments., the Treasury and Mines Department are represented, and which is in reality a committee reporting to the Committee of Imperial Defence.
I start by saying that I am in agreement with the Mover of the Amendment that certain powers under the Essential Commodities Act should come in, but you do it by Order-in-Council. There is no point in saying "There shall be transferred," because the White Paper says so. You do not effect any improvement by altering the wording of the Clause. The White Paper says "There shall be transferred." What you do not do is to transfer food or petrol, because that is a separate line of country already provided for. This Clause is entirely a matter of book-keeping. Instead of these various purchases that the Board of Trade makes under the Essential Commodities Act figuring on a particular Estimate, they are taken off and debited from a particular account and credited to another. The Clause is put in as a bookkeeping transaction entirely. The intention is to transfer to the new Ministry under the first Order-in-Council all the Essential Commodities Act powers of the Board of Trade except food, feeding stuffs and petrol.

Sir Irving Albery: Which Minister is responsible for the Oil Board?

Mr. Burgin: The Oil Board is presided over by the Chancellor of the Duchy and reports to the Committee of Imperial Defence, so that it is the Minister for Co-ordination sitting in another place, who has as his spokesman here: the Chancellor of the Duchy.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any direct representation himself on the Oil Board?

Mr. Burgin: I am satisfied that I am adequately represented on it as it is., but I will make inquiries and perhaps on Report shall be able to give the explanation for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks.

Mr. Wilmot: Will the commodities now being dealt with by the Lord Privy Seal's


Department, commodities required by the various departments of A.R.P. and required by local authorities for fire-fighting services and so on, be transferred to the right hon. Gentleman's Department by the order that he mentions?

Mr. Burgin: They are not covered by the Essential Commodities Act. They would require another Order-in-Council so far as they consist of steel and so on.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out where the powers of the Board of Trade are transferred?

Mr. Burgin: In the White Paper, page 3, the first line.

Mr. Lees-Smith: It says "the acquisition and maintenance of fertilisers for land and raw materials from which fertilisers can be produced."It is confined to those two articles.

Mr. Burgin: It is necessary to put it in that manner because these are statutory powers which have expressly to be transferred. The hon. Member can accept my assurance that in the first Order-in-Council there will be transferred to the Minister of Supply the powers of the Board of Trade under the Essential Commodities Reserves Act except food, forage and petroleum.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman asks us now to accept his assurance. As a matter of fact the White Paper has been issued in order to tell us what will be transferred, and this transference on which he has based his argument is not included in the White Paper at all. There must be some explanation.

Mr. Burgin: I have tried very hard once or twice to give the explanation. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking without the Essential Commodities Act before him. If he had it, he would see that this gives power to the Board of Trade in regard to other matters as well as food, forage and petroleum. Therefore, being a power referred to in the Statute, it has expressly to be referred to in the White Paper. After all, the White Paper is intended for the convenience of the House. It is intended to be a revelation by the Minister of the way in which he intends to use the powers transferred to his Department by Order in Council, and it was thought to be a convenient method of telling the House that when the Bill, giving him

power to use Orders in Council, is passed he intends by the first Order in Council to do certain specific things, and so there is in the White Paper a reference to the skeleton of the wording of the Order in Council which will be the first Order in Council made under this Act when it becomes an Act. Power to buy raw materials is given to the Minister of Supply. Power to buy certain stocks was given to the Board of Trade by the Act of 1938. The power over food is to be retained and the power over petrol is to be retained.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman is asking us for the second time to-night to accept what is his intention rather than what seems to be in the Clause itself. I have listened as carefully as I could to what he has had to say about this Measure and it seems to resolve itself, in the long run, into what the Minister intends to do. He does not accept our first Amendment. Would it not strengthen his purpose and give him more room for the carrying out of his intention if he were to accept our second Amendment? It states:
His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for such consequential matters as it appears to Him expedient to provide for by reason of this Sub-section, and may by any such Order modify any enactment relating to such matter.
I do not see that what the Minister intends to do is in the Clause at all. This is a flexible Amendment, there are no two ways about it, and the right hon. Gentleman should not ask the Committee to take things on trust.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I hope that the Minister will not accede to the appeal which has been made to him. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has said that we are being asked to accept too many things on trust, but if the second of these Amendments were carried we should be asked to accept everything on trust. I am rather surprised that hon. Members above the Gangway are sponsoring an Amendment of this kind. The hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley), who moved the Amendment, had practically nothing to say about this second Amendment.

Mr. Kirkwood: That was left to the Liberal party.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that the Liberal party comes under the heading of the second Amendment, which empowers that
His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for such consequential matters as it appears to Him expedient to provide for by reason of this Sub-section.
And, secondly, is given power to
modify any enactment relating to such matter.
Those are entirely unlimited and undefined powers. First of all the Minister is given power to do practically anything he likes. Secondly, he is given power to modify Acts of Parliament. That is, as I said when speaking upon a previous Amendment, what is commonly known as the Henry VIII Clause, giving that power to a Department. No sort of time-limit is proposed in the Amendment. Hon. Members probably know that this question was fully considered by the Donough more Committee, on which the party above the Gangway were represented by the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) and by Professor Harold Laski, and all of them said that to give powers of this kind to a Department was inconsistent with the principles of Parliamentary Government, and that if there were an extreme case and it was thought that these powers were absolutely essential, they should be limited to 12 months from the passing of the Act. There is no 12 months' limitation here.
There was a precisely similar proposal put forward in this House a few weeks ago, but not by the party above the Gangway. It was in the Military Training Bill. If hon. Members will look at Section 11 of the Military Training Act they will see that there is a Section in almost entirely the same terms as the second Amendment, namely:
Subject to the provisions of this Section, His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for such consequential matters as it appears to Him expedient to provide for by reason of the passing of this Act, and may by any such Order modify any enactment relating to such matters.
On that occasion my hon. Friends and I put down an Amendment to limit the exercise of these powers to 12 months from the passing of the Act, and on that Amendment we were able to discuss and criticise the proposals which were then before the House. In that we had the

support of hon. Members above the Gangway. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), whom I am glad to see in his place, said, with reference to the Clause, which was precisely similar to the Amendment we are now considering:
I would say that this Clause is one which gives the Government very far-reaching powers to make Orders in Council. It is practically within the power of the Government to amend the Bill as they wish. For that reason the Clause ought to be greatly safeguarded. The Minister has not answered the point of the Amendment which is that the power to make these orders should be limited to 12 months.
He went on to say that, unless he was given satisfaction on that point, he and his friends would go into the Lobby against the Clause which they afterwards did. He was followed by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), who went even further. He was not dealing with any particular Clause, but with the whole class of Clauses of this description, and he said:
To allow Clauses like this to go through is to abrogate the legislative functions of this House and to entrust them to the right hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1939; cols. 1141–2, Vol. 347.]
It is a different right hon. Gentleman now, but the principle is precisely the same. I do not know whether hon. Members above the Gangway have more confidence in this Minister than they had in the Secretary of State for War. There have been other occasions quite recently when we have discussed matters of this kind. On 5th May of this year we discussed the Coast Protection Bill, and there again the proposal was made that the Minister should have power to abrogate the provisions of Acts of Parliament. On that occasion we had a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams), who condemned proposals of this kind in un measured terms. He said:
We" —
I take it he was referring to the party above the Gangway—
are certainly opposed to any legislation
I ask the Committee to mark the words "any legislation"—
which will confer upon civil servants the power to make orders which override the provisions of an Act of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1939; cols. 2262–3, Vol. 346.]


That is precisely what is proposed in this Amendment. That is the principle which was raised on Clause II of the Military Training Bill, and it is precisely the same principle which we are considering in the second of these Amendments. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I certainly cannot support the Amendment.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Batey: We have just listened to a very strange speech. The hon. Member may have a legal mind, but he certainly has not a logical mind. He has been happy in telling the Committee all the faults of some hon. Members on this side, but one thing that we should try to avoid in the House of Commone is the quoting of past speeches, because that can be done against Members of all parties. We on these benches sometimes do things which may seem to the ordinary mind to be silly. Again and again we move reductions in order to argue for more money, but that is the only way in which we can do it. Here also we have an Amendment which affords the only means of doing what we want to do. The Minister says that the Essential Commodities Reserves Act prevents the transference to him of powers relating to petrol. Some of us are interested in petrol. We believe that, in setting up a Ministry of Supply, powers should be power to the Minister to set up works for the extraction of oil from coal. Oil for the Army, Navy and Air Force is just as essential as guns. We are sadly disappointed that the Minister of Supply is to have no power to do the one thing that we believe to be essential, that is, extraction of oil from coal.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton-Brown): The question of the extraction of oil from coal does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Batey: But the Minister referred to the question of petrol, and when I speak of oil I am speaking of petrol. I want the power to deal with petrol transferred to the Minister. One thing that would be needed in a war is oil. The Army is being mechanised, and it will need petrol. It is essential that plant should be set up in this country, in order that we should have the petrol we need, and not run the risk of being prevented from getting it, as will be the case if we depend on supplies from overseas. I am

sorry that hon. Members below the Gangway will not support this Amendment, because, in my opinion, it is essential.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I listened, as I always do, with very great attention to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). I think he will agree that on most occasions I have listened to him, not merely with attention, but with a great deal of sympathy, and that I have often done what I could to back him up, especially on the kind of principle that he was advocating just now, I regret that this time I must part company with him. I do not think that he was quite fair. Usually he is very fair, but on this occasion he presented his argument as though, if this Amendment were adopted, the result would be to abrogate the rights of this House to control legislation, and to hand it over to some Ministerial Department beyond the control of Parliament Had that been so, I should have felt a certain doubt. But I wonder whether he has read Clause 6.

Mr. Foot: Yes.

Mr. Silverman: If he has, I understand his speech less than ever. There was nothing in that speech to indicate that he had; nothing to remind the Committee that the general principles he was advocating had to be read in relation to Clause 6. Sub-section (2) of that Clause says —

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into Clause 6 now. The hon. Member must wait until we get to it.

Mr. Silverman: I am not attempting for a moment to discuss it, but if we are asked to deal with a particular Amendment on a particular Clause, and to say that the acceptance of that Amendment would have a certain effect, when a later Clause makes it perfectly clear that it would have no such effect, I suggest that, without infringing the Rules of Order, I am entitled to draw attention to that Clause, without discussing it at all in order to meet the argument the hon. Member raised. I am doing it merely for that purpose and for no other. I do not propose to discuss it at all—it is not necessary—but I propose, with your permission, Colonel Clifton Brown, to read it and to do no more than that. Clause 6. (2) provides that:


Every Order in Council made under this Part of this Act shall be laid before Parliament and shall cease to have effect at the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date on which it is made, unless within that period resolutions approving the making of the Order are passed by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Foot: I am very sorry to differ from the hon. Gentleman on this occasion. He has pointed out in justification of this Amendment that the Order will need to come before the House. I make two answers to that. As he knows, you cannot amend an Order, and therefore the House is in a difficulty as compared with legislation. Secondly, I drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that a precisely similar Clause appeared in the Military Training Bill when his party took a different view. This provision to lay Orders before Parliament also occurs in the Military Training Act.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that all this discussion is out of order. When we come to Orders in Council we can discuss the whole thing, but the hon. Member is out of order in his speech, and he must not pursue that subject.

Mr. Silverman: The only point with which I am concerned—and I content myself with this—is to reply to the contention of the hon. Member that if this Amendment were passed the authority of Parliament would be abrogated, that it is clear under Clause 6 that that authority would not be abrogated.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I do not intend to enter into these high constitutional matters, but I should like to ask the Minister a question. As I understand it, he has informed the Committee that under the Clause, if passed without Amendment, he has certain powers. In the White Paper he has told us how he intends to use the powers for the first Order in Council. He now tells the Com-

mittee that he intends in the first Order in Council, when he produces it, to transfer all those powers with the exception of those dealing with food and petrol. That, I take it, is his intention. He went on to show the reason for the non-transference of fuel to be organised under what he called a separate Department under his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. Is that really the case? Surely, it is under the Board of Trade. The Vote is carried on the Board of Trade and there is no separate Department at all. For the convenience of organisation and ministerial work the right hon. Gentleman, I understand, presides over these matters, but it is not a separate Department. It is the method by which we work. If there is any extra work to be done it always seems to fall upon the right hon. Gentleman. Although in the first Order in Council he does not intend to take these particular powers respecting food and petrol, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a further Order in Council, if the situation so develops, to transfer these powers ultimately to the Ministry of Supply. I would like him to assure me whether I am correct.

Mr. Burgin: The hon. Member is quite correct. The Board of Trade was the Department that set up the Food (Defence Plans) Department, and to create a new Department in the sense that it was a statutory creation would need legislation, The matter will still be carried on the Board of Trade Vote. My hon. Friend is quite right. There is nothing whatever in the Bill which in any way fetters the power to transfer other powers, should it be deemed necessary.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 11.

Division No. 181.]
AYES.
[10.36 p.m.


Acland, Sir Ft. T. D.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Chapman, A, (Rutherglen)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Albery, Sir Irving
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Browne, A. G. (Belfast, W.)
Conant, Captain Ft. J, E.


Aske, Sir Ft. W.
Bull, B. B.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Cox, H. B. Trevor


Baxter, A. Beverley
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Craven-Ellis. W.


Beamish, Rear. Admiral T. P. H.
Butcher, H. W.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley


Beaumont, Han. R. E. B. (Portsm' h)
Cartland, J. R. K.
Crowder, J. F. E.


Beechman, N. A.
Carver, Major W. H.
Cruddas, Col. B.


Boulton, W. W.
Cary, R. A.
Culverwell, C. T.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
De Chair, S. S.




Denman, Hon. R D.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Donner, P. W
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rowlands, G.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Drewe, C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Russell. Sir Alexander


Duggan, H. J.
Kimball, L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Dunglass, Lord
Lees-Jones, J,
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Eastwood, J. F.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Leigthton, Major B. E. P,
Seely, Sir H. M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Selley, H. R.


Elliston, Cant. G. S.
Levy, T.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Lipson, D. L.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Little, J.
Simmonds, O. E.


Evans, D. O (Cardigan)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn't)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Loftus, P. C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Fildes, Sir H.
Lyons, A. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Fleming, E. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Foot, D. M.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Furness, S. N.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Macmillan, H. (Stookton-on-Tees)
Spens. W. P.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Gledhill, G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Goldie, N. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Markham, S. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Marsden, Commander A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sutcliffe, H.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tasker. Sir R I.


Grimston, R. V.
Moreing, A. C.
Tate, Mavis C.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., SJ


Guest, Maj Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P,


Gunston, Cast. Sir D. W.
Morrison, Rt. Han. W. S. (Cirencester)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hambro, A. V.
Munro, P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hannah, I. C.
Nall, Sir J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Walker Smith, Sir J.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Heilgers, Captain F, F. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peaks, O.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Hepworth, J.
Perkins, W. R. D
Wells, Sir Sydney


Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.
White, H. Graham


Holdsworth, H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Holmes, J. S.
Pilkington, R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel S


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hume, Sir G. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wise, A. R.


Hunloke, H. P.
Read, A. C. (Exeter)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hunter, T.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
York, C.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Captain Waterhouse and


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Captain McEwen.


Joel, D. J. B.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)





NOES


Adams, D. (Consett)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kirkwood, D


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Frankel, D.
Lathan, G.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Gallacher, W.
Lawson, J. J.


Adamson, W. M.
Gardner, B. W.
Leach, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Lee. F.


Banfield, J. W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leslie, J. R.


Barnes, A. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Logan, D. G.


Barr, J.
Grenfell, D. R
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Batey, J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McEntee, V. La T.


Benson, G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
McGovern, J.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Maclean, N.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Marshall, F.


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Maxton, J.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hicks, E. G.
Messer, F.


Burks, W. A.
Hopkin, D.
Milner, Major J.


Cape, T.
Isaacs, G. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Jaguar, J.
Naylor. T. E.


Cocks, F. S.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Daggar, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Oliver, G. H.


Dalton, H.
John, W.
Parker, J


Day, H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Parkinson, J. A.


Dobbie, W.
Jones. A. C. (Shipley)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ede, J. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Poole, C. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwallty)
Kirby, B. V.
Pritt, D. N.







Richards, R. (Wraxham)
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Watson, W. MoL.


Ridley, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lee- (K'ly)
Welsh, J. C. '


Riley, B.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helene)
Stephen, C.
Wilmot, J.


Sexton, T. M.
Stewart, W. j (H'ght'n le-Sp'ng)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Shinwell, E.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Silkin, L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Young, Sir R. (Newton I


Silverman, S. S.
Thurtle, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Simpson, F. B.
Tinker. J. J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Chorlton.


Sloan, A.
Viant, S. P.



Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Watkins. F. C.



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

1.45 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I wish to submit a few observations for the consideration of the Committee and the Minister. This Clause relates to the transfer of the functions of other Government Departments. In the White Paper, it is stated that:
The Royal Ordnance Factories, and other manufacturing establishments concerned with the stores transferred, will become the responsibility of the Minister.
I suggest that when the Royal Ordnance Factories are taken over, they should organise research on a bigger scale than in the past, and that, in view of the developments that are taking place through out the world, the Royal Ordnance Factories, when taken over, should also carry out great experiments that ought to be carried out under the auspices of the State. The reason I raise these matters is that one or two points have been put to me by promiment people in industry who are very much concerned about the matters on which I am speaking. I find that a German who has been resident in London for many years has been responsible for preparing a report that has been published in Germany, and in this report, he comments on the restriction of the development of home refineries in order to keep up the value of the oil industry's wharves and depots and the favouring, for capitalist reasons, of rail against road traffic. I suggest that when the Royal Ordnance Factories are taken over, it should be the duty of the persons in those factories, acting on behalf of the Minister, to carry out, first of all, a survey of the manufacturing resources of this country, and secondly—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is getting very wide of the matter before the Committee. This Clause deals with the transfer of certain factories to the Ministry. The hon. Member is now going into the question of what

duties they might or might not perform, which is a new field that does not come up on this Clause.

Mr. Smith: I shall take note of your advice, Colonel Clifton Brown. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member who said "Hear, hear," has not been in the Committee for many minutes, and certainly, I shall not take any notice of his "Hear hear." Too much of that kind of thing takes place in the Committee. The hon. Member has not been here the whole day, but has been outside attending to ether business functions, and then he comes in and says, "Hear, hear" when we are trying to carry out our duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was it?"] If anyone wants the name, it can be given, because I think it is time there was some straight talking with regard to this. I was pointing out that these factories are to be taken over, and in my view, the time has arrived when the responsibility for co-ordinating and developing this kind of research should be carried out by those factories. In addition to that, some time ago the Institution of Mechanical Engineers held a conference in London, at which representatives of the engineering industry from all parts of the world were present. Several of the speakers who read papers at the conference devoted themselves to suggesting alternative supplies of motive power for this country.
One of the suggestions that was made was for dealing with the by-products of the coal industry. We can no longer afford to leave it to the Minister of Mines to deal with this question. It should be dealt with by the Minister of Supply, and now that he is taking over the Royal Ordnance factories the Minister should be responsible for seeing that the experiments which have been made in order that by products of coal can be used as alternative supplies for motor power are brought to the same success that they have been in some other countries. More and more the engineers concerned with these new methods are concerned about this. To


private enterprise it is not a business proposition.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member overlooks the fact that this Clause deals only with the transfer of certain functions, and he cannot deal with what those Departments might do.

Mr. Smith: May I suggest, with respect, that industry is changing from week to week, and if we could only get the best out of research that is taking place into new motive powers—which researches private enterprise cannot afford to carry through—it would result in great advantage to the State. I know it is a fact that in Germany, Soviet Russia and America what I am advocating is already being done.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is still dealing with powers. Powers are given under Clause 2.

Mr. Batey: On a point of Order, this Clause deals with the transfer of functions. How can a Member argue for or against a Department being transferred unless he can refer to the work that that Department does? I submit that can never be out of order.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, he can argue whether or not these powers should be relinquished and whether the Department should be transferred, but not with what they should do.

Mr. Neil Maclean: But if you are transferring the powers and duties of a factory, surely you are transferring the work that is being operated within the factory; and if that work can be improved, surely Members are within their rights in suggesting what improvements there can be in these duties under the Ministry itself?

Mr. Garro Jones: I cannot but think, Colonel Clifton Brown, that you have under-estimated the breadth of this Clause. May I respectfully draw your attention to Sub-section (2, b):
for the carrying on and completion by or under the authority of the Minister of anything commenced by or under the authority of any Government Department …";
and in particular to paragraph (c) which reads:
for such adaptations of the enactments relating to any powers or duties transferred …

Therefore, we are not dealing simply with powers and duties which already exist, but we are giving the Minister an extremely comprehensive power to adapt and extend those powers and duties. Surely it must be in order for an hon. Member to deal with the nature of those powers which may be adapted by the Minister under this; Clause?

The Deputy-Chairman: There is a difference between adaptation and extension, and what the hon. Member was arguing is the extension of the powers.

Mr. Stephen: Would not the hon. Member be in order in making a reference, if he does not debate the matter at length, to the particular extension which he has in mind?

The Deputy-Chairman: He has done so already.

Mr. E. Smith: I have finished with it now. I desire that the Royal Ordnance factories should adapt themselves to the carrying out of the experiments which the Institute of Mechanical Engineers recommended. This is only one example of many which could, be given. It is well-known that one of our greatest difficulties in the last War was in connection with shipping and transport. In another war it will be most important to economise as much as possible on shipping. Therefore, any alternative form of motive power that can be perfected in this country to save us importing petrol or oil will be a great advantage and will considerably increase the strength of the country. That is why I argue that the Royal Ordnance factories should be adapted for carrying out these experiments in particular. The Island Transport Company is already to a certain extent making use of an alternative motive power known as producer gas. This producer gas has been examined by the Glasgow Corporation Transport Department and I am asking that this matter should be carried a stage further. It is not right that we should leave experiments of this kind to private enterprise. Owing to the urgent necessity which exists in this matter, it is for the State to embark upon these experiments.
I find that in France, Russia, Germany, Italy, the Baltic States and in the Scandinavian countries, the use of producer gas as a motive power for vehicles is already being encouraged in various ways


by the State. Not only should we consider the utilisation of the ordinary by products from coal such as petrol and oil; we should also be engaged in perfecting such things as methods of transport by producer gas. In this way it will be possible to economise on shipping and in the use of petrol and oil so that the maximum supply can be utilised by the armed forces and retained at their disposal, while alternative methods are provided for ordinary transport. That can be done only if these experiments are carried out in the Royal Ordnance Factory on the same lines as the experiments made in other countries.

CLAUSE 4.—(Payments by Minister for creation of reserves.)

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, to leave out from the first "of," to "or," in line 35, and to insert:
stocks of that article or of any other article which can conveniently be used for or in connection with the production of that article.
This Clause is the Clause which deals with stores. You can avoid excessive use of shipping, as the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) has just asked, very largely by building up stores in advance, and you can build up stores by several ways. You can take the stores on Government account, keeping them in Government warehouses, or you can encourage industry to carry rather greater stocks and stores than in normal times. It may well be that a combination of both methods is the most sensible to adopt. The Clause as drafted refers to industrialists storing articles which they deal in or normally use, and it has come to my knowledge that in a great many manufactories there is usually an alternative supply of raw materials; so besides asking the manufacturer to store the article that he normally uses, I want him to have power to store the article that he only abnormally uses. I want the alternative articles to be stored as well. One of the instances would be sulphuric acid, which you can make either from pyrites or from sulphur, and I want power for a manufacturer of sulphuric acid to be able to store a stock of either of those commodities. There is no guile in this Amend-

ment. It is merely a redrafting which widens the power of storage to enable an industrialist to keep more than one raw material instead of merely the material in which he normally deals.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: Before we assent to any extension of this power, I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us what safeguard he proposes to introduce against the making of a profit on these transactions. I am sorry to have to mention a word which is generally so unpopular on the other side, but suppose a firm lays in a vast stock of commodities and they appreciate in value. What is the position then? On the other hand, suppose they depreciate in value. The usual procedure would be that if they depreciated, the firm would come to the Minister to reimburse them for their losses, but if they appreciate in value, the Minister never takes any share of the, profits. Surely it is not sufficient to give a bare power to the Minister to make grants or loans to enable manufacturers all over the country to carry increased stocks of every kind of commodity without making some provision for the method by which the accounts are to be kept as between the Minister and the manufacturer. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has some very good ideas on the point, but I am afraid that such ideas, unless carefully checked by the Committee, will operate to the benefit of the holders of the stocks rather than of the Government Department. It seems to me that this is the very first question that arises on this Clause and one to which the Minister might have given some attention.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: The hon. Member quite rightly said that such considerations might arise on the Clause, but they do not arise on this Amendment. On the Clause as a whole they may very likely be apt. All that I am asking is that instead of stocks in which a manufacturer deals, it should be any
stocks of that article or of any other article which can conveniently be used.
I pointed out that my desire in moving this slight Amendment was to give rather greater powers, and no question of accounts or of losses or gains arises on the Amendment, as such.

Mr. Garro Jones: If the Minister were asking in the Clause for £4 and then proposed an Amendment in which he asked for £6, surely we should be entitled to ask him why he asked for £4 or £6. He is asking for an extension of powers which have not been approved, and before we give him any extension which would commit us to the principle of giving powers at all we are entitled to ask for safeguards.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible that firms might confine their profiteering to goods covered by the term "any other article"? It might not be the article that the Ministers desires, but "any other article" essential to its production. When the Minister suggests that there may be stores of these other articles in the hands of potential profiteers we suggest that they should be controlled in such a way that huge fortunes may not be made out of them as was the case in the last War.

Mr. Pritt: I should like to put a point which will apply to the Clause whether it be amended or un amended. I think the Minister will agree that the Clause is intended to provide, on any reasonable construction, that the Minister will have no interest whatever in the stocks and no authority under the Clause to pay people money in respect of their losses or to ask them for subscriptions in respect of their profits. I understand that is the clearly expressed policy, but I should like the Minister to consider the natural tendency when there is any form of storing for there to be a large increase in the value of the goods held, generally far offsetting the cost of storage and interest.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 36, leave out "thereof," and insert "of that article or such other article."

In line 37, leave out "so held," and insert "held by him."—[Mr. Burgin.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the Minister now be good enough to give us some explanation upon the point which I raised previously?

Mr. Burgin: I am indebted to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) who, I think, has rightly divined the intention of this Clause. The operations which I foresee under this Clause—though I do not want it to be taken that my explanation is completely exhaustive and I will look into the matters which have been raised—are these: that in addition to the power to acquire and the power to store already given by Clause 2 it would be desirable that industry generally, either of its own volition or by inducement, should carry much greater stocks than it normally would carry, and carry, very likely, in this country. There are some great international concerns which could carry stocks on either side of the Atlantic, and it may be that if freight were paid or storage charge ware paid or an interest charge or some financial arrangement were made whereby there was, not a loss merely on movement of the material, it might be a sensible arrangement that stocks greatly in excess of the normal should be carried in this country, and to that extent render any convoy arrangements less necessary in time of emergency. My idea was that as there are certain stocks which will require to be turned over, taken out and put back, it would be reasonable that, where an industrialist was carrying a great stock of that kind, because he knew it was the Government's wish that he should, the indemnity for turning the material over should be paid by the State. My contemplation is that the sort of payment that is made gives no sort of interest whatever in the ownership of the stock, and no interest in its accretion or its fall, but merely a power to indemnify the industrialist against either an extra freight, an extra warehousing or an extra storage. If the Clause has a wider power, I will look into it and inform the House later, but on the information before me that is the full extent of the powers intended to be attributed by the Clause.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I am obliged to the Minister for putting more clearly than I did the view I formed of the Clause, and in that view it is a most dangerous Clause in the natural operation of commercial motives, we will say. People will be considering at some stage whether it will be a profitable enterprise to store goods, or carry a larger


stock, not only in the hope of selling them but also in the hope of reaping, possibly, an immense profit on the turnover when the emergency comes and when honour and freedom are at stake no price is too high for the goods you are selling. The joke is not original but it is a good one. This really makes it worse, because it says to the section of the commercial community which might naturally be embarking on such storage, "All you have to do if you want to make a little more is this. Get together and decide to let the Government understand that you are not encouraged to store. Our heart bleeds for our country and our dividends and we feel we would like to do some storage, but would you please buy the warehouse for us?"The Government says, "We are so sorry to think they cannot build their own warehouses. We will build them for them." When the Government has built the warehouses, which will probably become their property, they will proceed to put the stuff into them at £1 a ton and it will come out in six months' time, when the Government's foreign policy has caused a war, and they will sell it at about £1 a ton. Nothing whatever of that profit will come, in any shape or form, to the country, except, of course, that at some stage, towards the end, of the War, the Government will pass something in the nature of an Excess Profits Duty legislation. This Clause, nicely and truthfully explained by the Minister, should be called not
Payments by Ministerfor creation of reserves
but "Additional provisions for ramp."

11. 16 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The explanation which has been given by my right hon. Friend will, I hope, at a later stage, be supplemented by a little more detail about the exact wording of the Clause. We all understood under a previous Clause that the Government had power to purchase and store articles of any kind. This Clause would be quite clear if it were entitled: "Improvement of facilities, etc., storage." I understood my right hon. Friend to say that what he had in contemplation was the actual keeping of goods, either in this or in another country and not the augmentation of stock or the financing of enter-

prise, and not the sharing in the risks of loss or the making of profits, according to the ultimate price at which the goods were sold.
This Clause is very widely drawn, and it would be very helpful to businesses if we could have by the Report stage a little more detailed account of how this very general Clause is intended to work. I happen to know that a number of enterprises are anxious to co-operate with the Government on the Clause, and not to do the nefarious things to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred, in his allusions to private enterprise. The Clause may be expected to do useful work, because in addition to the powers which the Government will acquire on their own account, there will be great importance in the storage of the different ranges of commodities which are ordinarily produced in commercial work which the Government would not be able to buy or store, or even to know much about in the ordinary way. I ask the Minister to give us at a later stage a statement of how the Clause is expected to work, and afford us more protection against the fears which have been expressed.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Benson: This matter must be very carefully looked into. If an industry increases its stocks at the instance of the Government and then a fall occurs in prices, unless it has been made abundantly clear that the industry is carrying all the risks of price variation, that industry will be in a very strong position to come to the Government and say that it is entitled to some compensation. In those circumstances I do not think that any Government could resist such a demand, unless the position had been made abundantly clear that price variation up or down is at the risk or advantage of the storing industry. It must be made clear that, if price variations downwards are to be met out of Government funds, price variations upwards must flow into the Exchequer. We cannot enter into an arrangement of "Heads the Government lose; tails the storer wins." I hope that between now and Report the Minister will think out some formula which will safeguard, not only the question of ramp, but the equal danger of misconception on the part of storers that they are undertaking the storage at the risk of the Government.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The discussion has revealed a great problem which is raised by the Clause. The Minister has not argued about the problem, but has recited rather casual facts. I think the Committee are entitled to a fuller explanation of how it is proposed to deal with the possible dangers before we part with the Clause.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: I am indebted to the Committee for the help they are giving me in regard to this Clause. Hon. Members will appreciate that, when you set up a Ministry and take powers, a conscientious Minister cannot say without due reflection what is the full ambit of those powers. Certain fears have been expressed in regard to these powers, and it would be easy for me to trace those fears to their logical conclusion and find out whether they are misplaced, but for the moment I have only given the reasons for the Clause and the instances it is intended to cover. Some of these transactions have actually occurred, and there are instances where this enabling power is going to prove extremely useful in effecting what we desire, namely, an arrangement that, in return for payment of storage and indemnity, and the charges merely for the actual man-wage cost of handling, an industry will carry, at its risk—nothing could be clearer—certain abnormal stocks of material.
I do not want, across the Table, to give any assurance on which I am not absolutely certain, but I will give the Committee this assurance, that between now and Report I will work out the framework of possibilities under the Clause, and will give the House a series of illustrations showing the different types of cases which would be possible under the Clause. As I conceive it still, the Government do not take an interest in the ownership of the article. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says, "That is just the point," but it has the great advantage that an immense sum of national money may be available for defence instead of for a deal in commodities, and it may very well be, if an industry is patriotic enough to deal with the extra commodities which the Government require, that there are greater national funds left for some more immediate purpose. With that assurance I ask the Committee to accept the Clause as a

necessary Clause in the opinion of those who are endeavourng to achieve the very object which hon. Members have in mind, namely, the production of greater supplies, and the Amendment I have moved merely widens it so that it may extend to articles with which industrialists can conveniently deal.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I should like to ask the Minister a question with regard to what will happen if the Clause is agreed to and the storage is provided for, and the State pays a certain percentage towards the storage. Supposing that the commodity stored is metal, when the State requires that metal, will it, as a result of the payment, have a priority of claim on that metal in preference to ordinary commercial users?

Mr. Burgin: That, of course, is a very proper question, and the position should be made perfectly dear. The hon. Member is quite right. It is no use all these additional stocks being carried by the Ministry, and not being there when the Ministry wants them.

Mr. Pritt: Perhaps the Minister will consider the possibility of express power being taken, where necessary, not only for making a bargain about the availability of stocks, but for making a bargain about the price of stocks?

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's statement. He asked, why should we spend money on commodities when patriotic employers are pre pared to supply the necessary storage? When the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) spoke about the possibility of commercial trickery and profiteering, an hon. Member below the Gangway said he did not think the commercial interests would engage in those nefarious enterprises. But we have experience, and very rich experience— though not so rich for us as for those who profiteered. I would remind the Committee that the Minister and those associated with him are very anxious to en courage profiteering—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is quite out of order. The imputation of unworthy motives cannot be allowed.

Mr. Gallacher: I will try to make good any remarks I may make. We have in


this Clause provision for storage, or the improvement of the facilities available for the storage of goods. The Minister is empowered to make a grant for the erection of new premises for storage purposes. But it is not long since a proposal was made by a firm to produce commodities on a non-profit basis. The Minister who was responsible, when he opposed the proposal at that Box, gave as one of his strongest arguments against it that if the offer were accepted our first responsibility would have been the building of additional facilities for producing the commodities concerned. So, because there was an offer to produce on a non profit basis, the Government refused to give it any consideration.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that he is going beyond the Clause. He is discussing the production of goods.

Mr. Gallacher: But you must agree that the principle is the same. The principle involved is the improvement of facilities. The Government refuse to give grants for additional facilities where there are no profits, but are prepared to give grants for additional facilities where profits are to be obtained. I suggest that, while at the moment it might save the Government spending money in the buying of commodities, if the Government used their money to erect the necessary premises on their own account, and not to erect premises for a private employer or for the big combines, who can and will, in such circumstances, push up prices— if the Government were to use this money to erect their own premises and increase facilities for storage under their control, I guarantee that later on the saving that would be obtained would repay them over a hundredfold for the money that they had spent. That would save us from spending money in buying commodities.
At the moment the Government are spending money, but think of what they will have to spend later on when the Minister has to get his commodities under conditions such as I visualise, where you have all the centres for the storage of commodities formed into a powerful combine charging their own prices. I say to the Minister and to this Committee that if money is to be spent as suggested in this Clause for the erection of premises

for storage purposes, the Government themselves should spend it in building their own storage centres. In no circumstances should this Committee allow, or even contemplate for a moment, public money to be used to build new premises for private employers, so that they can store goods for the specific purpose of making large profits later on. That is, obviously, the direct path to the worst kind of profiteering—profiteering not even on their own capital but on capital supplied by the Ministry. The Committee must object to that.

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown? I think that you ruled that the Clause was designed to encourage storage, and not production. Will you look at the words:
The Minister may … make payments by way of grant or loan—
(a) to any person producing, dealing in or having control of any article … for the purpose of inducing the augmentation of the stock.
Does not that really amount to this, that you may encourage people actually to produce more goods as long as you are encouraging them to produce more goods for the purpose of carrying on storage?

The Deputy-Chairman: As a matter of fact, that is correct. I was perhaps a little hard when I gave my Ruling, and I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Poole: I should like the Minister to clear up one point on this Clause. What check has he on the usage of the accommodation which is provided either by way of grant or loan from the Treasury? Has he any method of control and of assuring that it shall be used only for a specific purpose? May I put this proposition which, I think, he will appreciate by virtue of his late position as Minister of Transport. I gather that one of the bodies that he will be able to assist by way of grant or loan will be the railway companies, and that one of the articles of stock which the railway companies may be required to increase in order to provide the necessary accommodation for increased commodities may be rolling stock. Will the Minister tell us in what way he proposes to safeguard the position that the rolling stock provided under the terms of this Clause shall


be used only for the specific purposes for which the grant or loan is provided? It will be exceedingly difficult for the Minister to know exactly what is happening to such a flexible thing as rolling stock. It is undesirable that public money should be expended, and even railway companies subsidised, to provide rolling stock for this specific purpose, and the railway companies be left free to use the stock for whatever purpose they desire.

Mr. Burgin: When we come to Clause 5 the hon. Member will see that there is complete power to obtain returns as to storage facilities and as to the use made of such facilities which will give me the information and control about which he has asked.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: While I appreciate the expression of intention on the part of the Minister, I am certain that he realises chat that has nothing to do with the effect of the Clause. I hope my hon. Friends will signify their opposition to the proposal. It has been inadequately thought out. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think, he need not scoff at my remarks, because he has confessed that it was inadequately thought out, and if he will bear with me I hope to convince him. If this Clause is not administered extremely carefully it will be looked upon as a veritable speculator's dream. If I wanted to buy rubber, I could purchase an enormous quantity by paying to some commodity broker 1 per cent. cover for a month or two months. The same applies to tin and almost every commodity of which the Minister seeks to obtain storage under this Clause.
I came across a case the other day where the Air Ministry had placed a large order for a certain commodity with a certain firm. I will not name them. Later, the order was cancelled and the firm put in a claim against the Air Ministry in respect of the large quantity of commodities which they had laid in stock in order to meet the requirements of the Air Ministry. Naturally, there was a considerable amount of delay while the matter was being discussed, and during that period the commodities appreciated to such an extent that the firm were able to abandon

their claim against the Air Ministry because they had made a larger profit on the appreciation of the commodity than they would have made if they had turned the commodities into manufactured goods. So it will be in this; case if the right hon. Gentleman docs not administer the Clause very carefully.

Sir P. Harris: What about losses?

Mr. Garro Jones: I am prepared for the participation of the State in losses as long as they take profits. What I object to —and we have had examples almost every week—is the State shouldering losses and declining positively to participate in the profits. What is the penalty in the Clause? Suppose I go to the Minister and I lay in a stock of 1 tons of rubber or tin and I make a false statement, the penalty is £1. That is a totally inadequate penalty for an offence which may enrich the offender to the extent of £5, or more.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take the Clause back and redraft it in some other form. If he wishes to give some inducement, let him consult the insurance brokers. It might be possible by paying, say, a 1 per cent. underwriting fee to underwrite these commodities against any loss. Ten per cent. should be ample. If he is going to build up vast stocks on the basis of grants or loans, with no security specified for the loan, suppose he lends a firm £2, in order to induce a substantial storage of a certain commodity, and they lay in the stock. Time passes and then these vastly swollen stores are thrown on the market at a loss, and the firm comes to the Minister and says: "We are sorry. You lent us £2,, but we have lost more than that amount on realisation of the stock which you induced us to hold. We are not able to repay that amount." I very much doubt whether the Minister would make a very great fight against that claim. Therefore, I appeal to him to take the Clause back and redraft it. Meanwhile, I hope my hon. Friends will vote against the proposal.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 88.

Division No. 182.]
AYES.
[11.4 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Goldie, N. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Peake, O


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Pilkington, R.


Apsley, Lord
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Assheton, R.
Hambro, A. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Hannah, I C.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Harmon, Sir P. J. H.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A,
Remer, J. R.


Beechman, N. A.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Richards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bernays, R. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boulton, W. W.
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Holdsworth, H.
Rowlands, G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Holmes, J. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brawn, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hunloke, H. P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hunter, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Bull, B. B.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Bullock, Capt. M.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Selley, H. R.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Jarvis, Sir J J.
Shakespeare, G- H.


Cartland, J. Ft. H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cary, R. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Kimball, L.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lees-Jones, J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Leach, Sir J. W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Levy, T.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E P.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cruddas, Col. B.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Culverwell, C. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. I..


De Chair, S. S.
Lyons, A. M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Drewe, C.
MacDonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hal!)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Duggan, H. J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Duncan, J. A. L.
McKie, J. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dunglass, Lord
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Watt, Lt.-Col, G. S. Harvie


Eastwood, J. F.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Wells, Sir Sydney


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Markham, S. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Medlicott, F.
Wise, A. R.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fildes, Sir H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
York, C.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Furness, S. N.
Munro, P.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nall, Sir J.
Grimston.


Gledhill, G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.



Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh





NOES


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Gallacher, W.
Lawson, J. J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Garro Jones, G M.
Logan, D. G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, G. Ones)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
McEntee, V. La T.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McGhee, H. G.


Banfield, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R.
Maclean, N.


Barr, J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Marshall, F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hall. G. H. (Aberdare)
Maxton, J.


Benson, G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Messer, F.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Milner, Major J.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)


Cape, T.
Isaacs, G. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Cocks, F. S.
Jagger, J.
Parker, J.


Daggar, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parkinson, J. A.


Dalton, H.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Day, H.
John, W.
Poole, C. C.


Dobbie, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Pritt, D. N.


Ede, J. C.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kirby, B. V.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Kirkwood, D.
Robinson. W. A. (SI. Helens)


Fleteher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lathan, G.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Frankel, D.

Sexton, T. M.







Silkin, L.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-la-Sp'ng)
Wilmot, J.


Silverman, S. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Simpson, F. B.
Tinker, J. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Sloan, A.
Watkins, F. C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Watson, W. MoL.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Welsh, J C.
 Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
White, H. Graham



Stephen, C.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

CLAUSE 5.—(Power to require returns of stocks, etc.)

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, to leave out "storing."
I will deal with this Amendment and the following Amendment together. I think that with a short explanation, the Committee will agree to accept these Amendments. In the Second Reading Debate, the hon. And learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), to whom I am indebted, pointed out that this provision could have been better drafted. He pointed out that if we limited the power to get information to the storage of articles which the persons normally dealt in, we should not have the power, for example, to use any railway shed for the storage of wheat. At the time, I intimated to the hon. And learned Gentleman that I thought he had scored a point, and that I would have the matter looked into by the draftsmen. The draftsmen agree with the hon. And learned Gentleman, and therefore, the Clause has been revised to make it entirely general, and by application, I can obtain a return of storage available of a perfectly general character, regardless of the articles for which the building is normally used. That is obviously a sensible power and one that the Committee will desire me to have, and I am indebted to the hon. And learned Member for East Bristol for enabling me to have the matter put right.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, line 26, at the end, insert:
(3) The Minister may by notice in writing require any person who has under his control accommodation suitable for the storage of any articles required for the public service to make periodical and other returns, at such times and containing such particulars as may be specified in the notice, as respects—

(a) the nature and extent of that accommodation;
(b) the period for which any part of that accommodation is already required and the purpose for which it is required; and
(c)the facilities available for making use of the accommodation."

In line 3, leave out "two," and insert "three."—[Mr. Burgin,]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to Orders in Council.)

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, to leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3), and to insert:
(2) The draft of any Order in Council proposed to be made under this Part of this Act shall not be submitted to His Majesty unless it has been approved by resolutions passed by each House; of Parliament:
Provided that if, at any time when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or when both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than fourteen days, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that the making of an Order in Council under this Section is urgently necessary, a draft of the Order need not be laid before Parliament, but the Order shall, except as respects things previously done or omitted to be done, cease to have effect at the expiration of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which the Commons House first sits after the making of the Order, unless within that period resolutions approving the making of the Order are passed by both Houses of Parliament.
This Amendment seeks to make an important improvement in this Clause, which is the operative Clause of the Bill and therefore asks for the right to make Orders in Council. The Amendment asks that these should be draft Orders. At this time of night 2 need not attempt to make out a case why the Orders should be laid in draft rather than as Orders. Hon. Members are aware that we have no real power, once such Orders are laid. What happens is that we put down a Prayer which we can discuss after Eleven o'Clock, when the Minister says he has no power to amend the Order, and there is an end of it. In this very important Bill we ask that the Minister should accept this Amendment that Orders should be laid in draft. In order that the Minister should not be hampered in certain circumstances the second part of the Amendment suggests that, if Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or adjourned for more than 14 days, and
it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that the making of an Order in


Council under this Section is urgently necessary, a draft of the Order need not be laid before Parliament, but the Order shall, except as respects things previously done or omitted to be done, cease to have effect at the expiration of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which the Commons House first sits after the making of the Order, unless within that period resolutions approving the making of the Order are passed by both Houses of Parliament.
I do not propose to spend time arguing this case. The Amendment asks that the sovereignty of Parliament should be preserved. This Bill is one of a long list which ask that Orders shall be laid before the House which can only be accepted or rejected. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment on this important Bill. We want to help the Minister to put something into the Bill as well as to take things out of it.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: We have made excellent progress with the Bill and I am very much indebted to the Committee for the way in which it has assisted me. The Amendment is one which I might very well accept in principle, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so, subject to re-drafting. I will table an Amendment on the Report stage. I express my pleasure at the way in which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have co-operated to make the Bill a success.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.— [Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision, amongst other matters, for securing farmers against low prices for oats, barley and fat sheep, and for securing a market for barley, for promoting the ploughing up of grassland and rendering it fit for arable crops, for the establishment of a reserve of agricultural machinery, and for increasing the resources of any company formed for such purposes as are mentioned in the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, it is expedient—

A. To authorize the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of:—

1.A subsidy in respect of land which is under oats, or under a mixed crop comprising oats or barley, in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine or in any subsequent year, subject to the following conditions —

(a) there shall be a higher rate and a lower rate of subsidy, and the higher rate shall not apply to land in a farm which during the first eight months of the year comprised any land under wheat unless the farm is excluded from the benefit of deficiency payments under the Wheat Act, 1932.
(b) the higher rate for any year shall be a rate per acre equal to fourteen times the difference between the average price per hundredweight for that year for home grown oats and eight shillings (or such other amount as may be substituted for that amount by an order duly approved) or the rate of two pounds six shillings and eightpence per acre, whichever is the less, and the lower rate for any year shall be a rate ascertained in like manner, but with the substitution of six times for fourteen times the said difference and of one pound for two pounds six shillings and eightpence; and
(c)the total amount which may be paid by way of subsidy for any year shall not exceed the amount which might have been so paid if the acreage of land qualifying for subsidy for that year had not exceeded two million five hundred thousand acres.

2. Any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1937, attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session fixing at thirty one shillings and sixpence per acre the rate of a subsidy for the year nineteen hundred and thirty-eight the payment of which is authorised by the said Part II, or extending the time for making elections or applications under the said Part II, or authorising the payment under the said Part II of a subsidy for that year at the rate of thirteen shillings and sixpence per acre in respect of land excluded from subsidy under the said Part II by Section seven of the Agriculture Act, 1937.

3. In respect of the year beginning on the first day of August nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, or of any subsequent year, being a year in the case of which provision is made under the said Act of the present Session for the payment of contributions into a fund established for the purpose of the making of subsidy payments in respect of land under barley, payments into the said fund for each hundredweight of any excess of nine-tenths of the amount of home-grown barley harvested in that year over the amount of home-grown barley by reference to which the amount of the contributions to be paid into the said fund is under the said Act to be determined, subject to the following conditions—

(a) the rate of any such payment shall not exceed the difference between the average price per hundredweight for that year for home-grown barley used, or to be used, for feeding livestock and eight shillings per hundredweight (or such


other amount as may be substituted for that amount by an order duly approved); and
(b) the total amount of such payments for any year shall not exceed the amount which might have been the amount thereof if nine-tenths of the amount of home-grown barley harvested in that year had not exceeded eighteen million hundredweights:

Provided that, in the case of the year beginning on the first day of August nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the said conditions shall not apply, but the amount of the said payments shall be such as may be determined under the said Act with the approval of the Treasury.

4. A subsidy, in respect of land which is under barley in the month of June immediately preceding the year beginning on the first day of August nineteen hundred and forty or any subsequent year, being a year in the case of which provision is made under the said Act of the present Session for minimum prices for home-grown barley, and in the case of which the average price per hundredweight for home-grown barley used or to be used for feeding livestock is less than eight shillings per hundred weight (or such other amount as may be substituted for that amount by an order duly approved), subject to the following conditions,—
(a) the rate of subsidy for any year shall not exceed two pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence per acre;
(b)the total amount which may be paid by way of subsidy for any year shall not exceed the amount which might have been so paid if nine-tenths of the amount of home-grown barley harvested in that year had not exceeded eighteen million hundred weights;
(c)the area of any land in respect of which subsidy may be paid shall be subject to reduction as may be provided by or under the said Act where it includes land on which there was growing in the said month barley in respect of which the pro vision aforesaid as to minimum prices has effect by virtue of the said Act.

5. Any expenses incurred by any Barley Advisory Committee constituted under the said Act of the present Session.

6. A subsidy in respect of fat sheep sold or slaughtered in the year beginning on the first day of August nineteen hundred and thirty-nine or in any subsequent year, subject to the following conditions:
(a) the amount of subsidy in respect of any sheep shall be an amount, for each pound of the standard weight (as determined under the said Act of the present Session with the approval of the Treasury) of sheep of the description to which that sheep belongs, equal to the amount (if any) by which the average price of sheep per pound for the month in which the sheep is examined under provisions in that behalf of the said Act is less than the standard price for that month;

(b) the standard prices for the several months in any year shall be determined, as may be provided by the said Act, in such manner as to render the average thereof equal to the standard price for that year; and
(c) the standard price for any year shall be tenpence per pound, but shall be related to a United Kingdom sheep population of twenty-seven millions, and shall be subject to reduction by one-eighth of a penny for each complete quarter of a million by which such population exceeds twenty-seven millions and by a further one-eighth of a penny for each complete quarter of a million by which it exceeds twenty-eight millions, and the said figure of twenty-seven millions shall be subject to reduction, to such extent as may be provided by the said Act, for the purpose of ascertaining the standard price for years following on biennial periods in which the standard price has been in excess of the average price:

Provided that the terms of this condition shall be subject to variation by an Order duly approved.

7. Such of the expenses of the examination of sheep for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session as may be thereby directed to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, any expenses incurred by the Livestock Commission in connection with the execution of the said Act, and any increase attributable to the execution of the said Act in the sums pay able out of moneys provided by Parliament by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Livestock Industry Act, 1937.

8. Grants in respect of the ploughing up, in the year nineteen hundred and thirty- nine, of land then under grass and the bringing of the land into a state of cleanliness and fertility, subject to the condition that the rate of such a grant shall not exceed one pound for a half acre.

9. Any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in connection with the acquisition and storage of stocks of agricultural tractors and other agricultural machinery or in doing anything appearing to him necessary for the storage, preservation, and transport of such stocks.

10. Payments, in the year beginning on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and in each or any of the nine teen next succeeding years, to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, being payments by way of grant or by way of loan not exceeding in any year sixty thousand pounds.

11. Any expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session by a Secretary of State, the Minister of Agriculture and fisheries, or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

B. To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of—

1. Any sums retained out of the proceeds of any sale of sheep forfeited under any


provision in that behalf made by or under the said Act.

2. Any sums representing the proceeds of any disposal of stocks of agricultural tractors or other agricultural machinery acquired under the said Act.

In this Resolution the expression 'order duly approved ' means an order made with the approval of the Treasury and approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament, and references to an average price, to an acreage of land qualifying for subsidy, to an amount of barley harvested, and to the United Kingdom sheep population, shall be construed as references to that price, acreage or amount, or to that population, as the case may be, as ascertained in accordance with any provisions in that behalf of the said Act of the present Session."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (REGULATION) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute after Twelve o'clock.